Ryanair profits more than double on Easter timing and fare hikes
Revenues jumped by 20% to 4.34 billion euros (£3.76 billion), boosted by the timing of Easter but also as Ryanair saw fares rise – in particular better-than-expected fares for last-minute bookings.
The average fare rose 21% year-on-year to 51 euros (£44.18) in the quarter, it said.
The group is seeing fares rebound after it cut them by 7% in its previous financial year as under-pressure consumers reined in spending.
But it said passenger growth was still being held back by delays to new aircraft deliveries, up 4% to 55.5 million in its first quarter despite the Easter boost.
It expects a rise of 'just 3%' to 206 million passengers over the full year in spite of strong summer travel demand.
The group has repeatedly slashed its annual passenger forecast, with the last revision in January, blaming aircraft delivery delays from Boeing.
Fares will also not rise by as much in the second quarter, it added.
Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary said: 'We do, however, cautiously expect to recover almost all of last year's 7% full-year fare decline, which should lead to reasonable net profit growth in full year 2025-26.
'The final 2025-26 outcome remains heavily exposed to adverse external developments, including the risk of tariff wars, macro-economic shocks, conflict escalation in the Middle East and Ukraine and European air traffic control strikes, mismanagement and short staffing.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
23 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Ursula von der Leyen's deal exposes the delusions of EU boosters
Photo byThe French prime minister François Bayrou said it was a 'dark day' for Europe. Under the trade deal that Donald Trump and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced in Scotland on 26 July, the US would impose a 15 per cent tariff on most European imports, but the European Union would not increase tariffs on American imports in return. According to Bayrou, 'an alliance of free peoples' had 'resolved to submission'. It was definitely a climbdown for the EU. Ever since Trump was re-elected last year and threatened new tariffs on imports to the US, the European Commission had threatened counter-measures – just as it did during the first Trump administration, when it responded to US tariffs on European aluminium and steel with its own tariffs on American products like bourbon. In the end, though, the EU simply accepted the new US tariffs this time – and on top of that, promised to increase purchases of American liquified natural gas and weapons. To be clear, what was agreed in Scotland is a political or 'framework' deal and a lot of the important details have yet to be worked out. In particular, it is not yet clear whether pharmaceuticals – a hugely important sector for the EU and especially Germany – will be included or how much steel will be exempt from tariffs. Moreover, the promises that von der Leyen made to increase investment in the US have already turned out to be empty – there is no way the EU can buy $750bn of American oil and gas in the next few years and it cannot direct companies to invest in the United States. Nevertheless, in the few days since the deal was announced, it has widely been seen as a humiliating European capitulation to Trump. Many critics of deal – especially EU boosters who fantasise about the idea of 'strategic autonomy' or a 'geopolitical Europe' – seem to imagine that the EU could have followed an alternative approach and stood up to Trump. In reality, though, there was little alternative to what Bayrou called 'submission'. Critics of the deal think EU member states undermined von der Leyen and forced her to negotiate from a position of weakness. It is true that some member states, especially Germany and Italy, ultimately backed off from threats of retaliatory measures because they feared that a full-on transatlantic trade war would ultimately hit important sectors of their economies harder than they are now being hit by the new US tariffs. But the idea that the EU had leverage over the US that it had but did not use – and that if it had used it, it could have struck a much better deal – is wishful thinking. As the world's largest trading bloc, the EU has long thought of itself as an economic superpower and prided itself on its ability to negotiate trade deals – that, of course, was one of main arguments why the UK should remain within in the EU. This deal has somewhat undermined that self-image. After all, in May, the UK was able to negotiate a slightly better deal with the Trump administration, with a baseline tariff of 10 per cent. But what really makes the EU weak relative to the US is its vulnerability in security terms. The idea that the EU had leverage over the US that it did not use only makes sense if you think that economics and security are completely separate realms and that security issues are irrelevant to trade negotiations and cannot be linked. But deep down, despite all the tough talk and the threats of retaliation to Trump's tariffs, European politicians knew that taking such a confrontational approach could have consequences for US support for Ukraine – or even for Nato and the US security guarantee to Europe itself. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe It's striking that this trade deal was being negotiated just as Trump seemed to be becoming increasingly frustrated with Vladimir Putin and more supportive of Ukraine. Earlier in July, Trump had reinstated supplies of US weapons to Ukraine – albeit paid for by Europeans – and threatened new economic sanctions against Russia if Putin did not make progress in negotiations within 50 days. (The day after the EU-US trade deal was announced, Trump said he was now giving Putin even less time.) As tentative as European leaders know Trump's shift on Ukraine is, they do not want to jeopardise it. EU trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, who apparently spent hundreds of hours in frustrating negotiations with Trump administration officials, hinted at this in a briefing the morning after the announcement of the deal. He said he could not go into the details of everything that was discussed with Trump in Scotland, but 'it was not just about trade'. In the end, what has made the EU so dependent on the US, and made the EU's 'submission' inevitable, is the war in Ukraine – or, to be more precise, the way that, for the last two and half years since the Russian invasion in 2022, European leaders have insisted that their own security depends on a Ukrainian victory. Related
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Is Britain's travel infrastructure fit for purpose? Join The Independent Debate
A technical fault in the UK's air traffic control systems on Wednesday sparked widespread disruption at the height of the summer getaway, with flights across major airports halted, diverted or turned back mid-air. Though the glitch lasted just 20 minutes, the knock-on effects stranded travellers for hours – and in some cases, days. As passengers faced cancelled holidays, long delays and hours stuck on grounded planes, fresh questions have been raised over whether Britain's travel infrastructure is fit for purpose. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander summoned the head of National Air Traffic Services (NATS) for urgent talks on Thursday, while furious airlines like Ryanair and EasyJet have demanded answers – and resignations. They point to a similar failure just last summer as proof that lessons haven't been learned. Defenders argue that even the best systems can fail occasionally, and that the rapid recovery showed overall resilience. But critics say repeated issues, outdated infrastructure, and underinvestment are combining to make UK travel increasingly unreliable – whether it's in the skies, on the rails or across the roads. So is this just an unfortunate blip – or the latest sign that Britain's travel networks are no longer up to the job? Should infrastructure be overhauled and modernised, or is public criticism unfair on systems that work well most of the time? We want to hear from you. Is Britain's travel infrastructure still fit for purpose? Share your thoughts in the comments and vote in the poll below – we'll feature the most compelling responses and discuss the results in the coming days. All you have to do is sign up and register your details – then you can take part in the debate. You can also sign up by clicking 'log in' on the top right-hand corner of the screen.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
EU wine, spirits to face 15% US tariff from August 1, EU says
BRUSSELS, July 31 (Reuters) - European wine and spirits will face a 15% U.S. import tariff until a different deal is agreed in talks expected to continue in the autumn, the European Commission and EU diplomats said on Thursday, dashing producers' hopes of an immediate reprieve. A framework trade deal between Brussels and Washington on Sunday agreed a 15% tariff for most EU imports into the United States, although some sectors were expected to be exempted. The U.S. tariff on European wine and spirits is currently 10%. Brussels is keen to reduce that to zero or, for wine at least, to the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) rates that are set on a fixed cost per litre basis, rather than in percentage terms. "The Commission remains determined to achieve and secure the maximum number of carve-outs including ... wine and spirits," Commission spokesperson for trade Olof Gill said. "It is not our expectation that wine and spirits will be included as an exemption in the first group announced by the U.S. tomorrow. And therefore that sector will be captured by the 15% ceiling," he said. Wine-makers said the tariff, even if temporary, would hurt the sector, especially when combined with the stronger euro. "The 15% duty on EU wines, even if applied for some months until the negotiations are closed, would cause significant economic losses not only for EU wine producers but also for U.S. businesses involved throughout the supply chain," said Ignacio Sanchez Recarte, secretary general of European wine producers group CEEV. "When combined with the currency shift in the dollar/euro exchange rate, the overall financial burden on the sector could reach 30%. Investments will be halted and export volumes will decline while waiting for the final agreement," he said. U.S. Distilled Spirits Council President and CEO Chris Swonger also urged a quick deal to bring tariffs down to zero. "It is extremely disappointing and utterly exasperating that the U.S. and EU have not yet come to an agreement on spirits, which is an easy win for the United States that will help secure our economic vitality during this challenging time for the hospitality industry," Swonger said. "It is critical for our great American distilleries, farmers and hospitality workers across the country that President Trump secure a permanent return to zero-for-zero tariffs on spirits with the European Union," he said in a statement. The U.S. is to publish an executive order on Friday, implementing the framework trade deal that was agreed on Sunday between U.S. President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Separately, the EU and the U.S. are to publish a joint statement spelling out the details of the framework deal. A senior diplomat said that talks on wine and spirits tariffs would continue after the joint statement. "(This will take place) probably in the autumn," the diplomat said. Until recently, spirits had benefited from zero tariffs between the U.S. and EU following an agreement in 1997 that also included other countries such as Canada and Japan. That lasted until 2018, when the EU response to U.S. steel and aluminium tariffs included increased duties on U.S. bourbon and other spirits. These were suspended in 2021. U.S. MFN rates for wine are 19.8 cents per litre for sparkling and 6.3 cents per litre for most other wine, which equates to very low rates in most cases.
