Instead of cutting passenger journeys, the mentioned efficiency measures would be far more effective in ensuring an immediate 11% reduction in carbon footprint by using the most efficient aircraft that airlines already have more strategically on routes they already fly, rather than providing lip service to terms like sustainable fuels or carbon offsets.

The researchers analysed over 27 million commercial flights in 2023, covering 26,000 city pairs and nearly 3.5 billion passengers. The methodology revealed enormous variability in emissions efficiency, with some routes producing nearly 900 grams of CO₂ per kilometre for each paying passenger, almost 30 times higher than the most efficient, at around 30 grams of CO₂ per kilometre. Published in Nature Communications Earth & Environment, the study claims to be the first to assess the variation in flights’ operational efficiency around the world.

As aircraft become increasingly fuel-efficient, the amount of carbon dioxide per kilometre flown has been decreasing, but the increase in the number of flights has far outpaced this, leading to higher emissions that are contributing to the climate crisis. Aviation experts predict that by 2050, carbon dioxide emissions from aviation could double or even triple. The new analysis also revealed that more polluting flights were common from smaller airports in the United States and Australia, as well as in parts of Africa and the Middle East. In contrast, airports in India, Brazil, and Southeast Asia were dominated by less polluting flights.

Flights out of airports like Atlanta and New York were among the least efficient, nearly 50% worse than those at the most efficient airports, such as Abu Dhabi and Madrid. The UN aviation body, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), is pinning its hopes on an “unambitious and problematic” offsetting scheme, known as CORSIA, to reduce emissions, but has not yet made any airline purchase a carbon credit.

In fact, Khaled Diab, the communications director at Carbon Market Watch, remarked, “No airline has yet been obliged to use a single carbon credit under the UN’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). And when they are, CMW research reveals the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) imposes a carbon price on aviation emissions that is 25 times higher. This clearly demonstrates that cap-and-trade systems are better for the climate and should be expanded.”

Prof Stefan Gössling at Linnaeus University in Sweden, who led the research, said, “We are currently stuck with a global situation where there is no hope that aviation will reduce its emissions.”

According to him, all-economy-seat planes, 95% flight occupancy, and using today’s most efficient aircraft could cut fuel use and therefore emissions by 50%-75%. It would also mean far less sustainable fuel would be needed to make flying nearly emissions-free in the future.

“I always thought air transport was already very efficient, and that is also what airlines like to tell people. But, in reality, it’s very inefficient because of three factors: using old aircraft, transporting people [in premium seats] with lots of space, and often having aircraft that are not fully loaded. In 2023, the average ‘load factor’, seat occupancy, was almost 80%,” Gössling added.

Crunching the details

The study also analysed the efficiency of 26,000 pairs of cities based on the amount of CO₂ emitted per kilometre per passenger, using data from 3.5 billion passengers who flew a total distance of 6.8 trillion km (145 trips to the sun, 577 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions, equivalent to the annual emissions of Germany).

The study found that US flights were 14% more polluting than the global average, China had efficiencies slightly above average, and the UK, the third-largest aviation polluter in the world, had efficiencies slightly below the 84.4g of CO₂ per passenger kilometre average.

The most efficient route was Milan, Italy, to Incheon Airport near Seoul, South Korea (31.6g CO₂/pkm). The least efficient route was in Papua New Guinea, with the second-worst from Ironwood Airport to Minneapolis/St Paul in the US (805g CO₂/pkm).

“While airlines often claim that fuel savings are in their own economic interest, the reality is that many airlines continue to fly with old aircraft, low load factors, or growing shares of premium-class seating,” the researchers noted.

“The most important factor was replacing premium seats with denser economy seating: First- and business-class passengers are responsible for more than three times the emissions of economy passengers, and up to 13 times more in the biggest premium cabins. Other policies that might encourage greater efficiency include softer policies like requiring airlines to disclose an efficiency rating for each route. You wouldn’t want to fly with an airline that is rated F. Market-based policies might include airports charging higher landing fees for more polluting aircraft, which also makes local communities’ air dirtier,” Gössling claimed.

While the efficiency gains that the study identified, such as replacing older, more polluting planes, would bring improvements, they would also confront the reality of an industry operating on low margins. However, Gössling argued that the sector was stuck in a business model that maximised passenger numbers to boost profit and that it could operate fewer, fuller flights with higher ticket prices.

He said that many flights are taken because they are so cheap, commenting, “We know that a lot of air transport demand is induced. If you increase the cost, people will just choose a different type of holiday.”

Facing the reality

The senior vice-president of sustainability at the International Air Transport Association, the trade association for the world’s airlines, Marie Owens Thomsen, told Reuters, “Airlines have a vested interest in reducing fuel burn and maximising load factors, but the order backlog for aircraft exceeds 5,000 planes due to supply-chain failures.”

She further added that real progress in reducing aviation emissions would come from the use of SAF, CORSIA, and the modernisation of air routes.

Aviation accounts for 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Still, flying is concentrated among wealthy passengers, with 1% of the world’s population responsible for 50% of aviation emissions, while only 10% of people fly at all in any one year, and 4% fly abroad.

An ICAO spokesperson said its analysis showed that operational improvements could account for 4%-11% of the carbon emission reductions required to achieve net zero, while factors such as cleaner fuel and innovative technologies will do the remainder.

Meanwhile, with the aviation sector racing to decarbonise, how much might the cost of a passenger ticket increase by 2050? Naomi Allen, Head of Research at RAeS (Royal Aeronautical Society), crunched the numbers to find out the reality.

Decarbonising aviation will make the sector more expensive and, therefore, ticket prices will rise, making flights less accessible to passengers. Assuming that 25% of the ticket cost is for fuel, by 2050, the industry will face another dilemma, like fuel cost, including the real value (CAF or SAF), along with the penalties due to non-compliance with the mandate and the cost of GGR (Greenhouse Gas Removal) for any remaining carbon emissions.

On the other hand, the University of Oxford report assumes that fuel (kerosene and SAF) costs and GGR costs are evenly distributed across tickets and are agnostic as to which flights use SAF or not. While the United Kingdom’s SAF mandate does not yet specify requirements for 2050, according to Allen, the industry has assumed that the requirement will be 70% of fuel being SAF, the same as the ReFuelEU mandate requirement.

“The average ERF of the SAF used is assumed to be 70%; this may be an underestimate for PtL SAF by 2050, but it is higher than the ERF typically seen for many other types of SAF at the current time. Assuming Net Zero for the sector in 2050, all net carbon emissions resulting from the fuel outside the mandate and the ERF of the SAF will have to be offset by GGR,” Allen told The Guardian.

The study also ignores inflation between now and 2050, assuming that the price of fossil-fuel-derived kerosene in 2050 will be $700/ton, although the actual price will depend on the pace of decarbonisation in other sectors. The report assumes that the supply of SAF is sufficient to meet demand up to the level of the SAF mandate and that the supply of GGR is unlimited. In reality, SAF and GGR may not be available to the aviation sector in the necessary quantities, as there will be competition for resources between other sectors and scaling constraints.

Greenhouse gas removals by 2050 are expected to be permanent. However, the estimated costs for these removals vary significantly. The World Economic Forum has stated that achieving a Direct Air Capture (DAC) cost of $150 per ton of CO₂ by 2050 is both necessary and feasible. In contrast, the recently published Independent Review of Greenhouse Gas Removals for the British government predicts that the costs for permanent removals in 2050 will be much higher. For the study, GGR prices of $100/ton and $600/ton are used; a midpoint of $350/ton CO₂ is used to capture the probable range due to alternative GGR methods and processes, and significant uncertainty. A midpoint of $350/ton CO₂ is used for some calculations.

It is anticipated that all decarbonisation will come from SAF and GGR, and that other decarbonisation options, such as electrification and hydrogen, will not have a significant impact on aviation emissions (either due to scalability or technology/infrastructure maturity) by 2050. Costs will be affected differently by other decarbonisation strategies. Moreover, the research found that, provided the price of SAF is about as expected or lower, and the cost of GGR is high, then meeting the SAF mandate will, on average, result in lower ticket prices than if Net Zero is achieved entirely through GGR.

On the other hand, if lower GGR costs are achieved, then meeting the SAF mandate is likely to raise ticket prices by 10%-15%. Note that this assumes that enough SAF will be available to meet the mandate, but it was also calculated that if the SAF mandate is not met, then non-compliance penalties could raise ticket prices by as much as 15% more, depending on the extent of the excess demand. The scenario is plausible, given doubts about the ability to scale up the supply of SAF.

The post Is cleaner aviation within reach? appeared first on International Finance.

Airlines cancelled more than 2,800 flights and delayed more than 10,200 on the third day of government-mandated flight cuts due to rising air traffic control staffing shortages, after thousands of delays and cancellations snarled traffic on November 8.

The government shutdown, which lasted for a record 40 days, has led to shortages of air traffic controllers who, like other federal employees, have not been paid for weeks.

“It’s only going to get worse… the two weeks before Thanksgiving, you’re going to see air travel be reduced to a trickle. Many of them are not going to be able to get on an aeroplane because there are not going to be that many flights that fly if this thing doesn’t open back up,” Duffy said on CNN’s “State of the Union” programme.

And the timing of the disruption couldn’t have been worse, as it coincided with the run-up to Thanksgiving, one of the most important US holidays, which this year falls on November 27. Millions of people usually travel during the national holiday.

Although the US Senate has voted to advance a bill to end the government shutdown, the issue here is that despite the bill’s passage, it must be approved by the House of Representatives and sent to President Donald Trump for his signature, a process that could take several days. While talking about the administration’s plan to deal with the ongoing aviation crisis, Duffy said that his department is not planning to revoke the flight cuts until controllers begin returning to work and safety data improves.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has already instructed airlines to cut 4% of daily flights at 40 major airports due to safety concerns with air traffic control. Flights are mandated to be reduced to 6% on November 11, then to 10% by November 14. The staffing issue has been seen at 12 air traffic control towers.

American Airlines urged quick approval of the Senate bill, noting that for 40 days, “federal aviation workers haven’t been paid and our customers have endured thousands of delays and cancellations due to the government shutdown.” Many airlines have already planned their cancellations for the coming days. United Airlines, for example, will cut 190 flights on Monday and 269 on Tuesday, the company told Reuters.

As per Duffy, a growing number of controllers have retired since the beginning of the federal shutdown on October 1. The FAA is 1,000 to 2,000 controllers short of full staffing.

“I paid experienced controllers to stay on the job and not retire. I used to have about four controllers retire a day before the shutdown… now up to 15 to 20 a day are retiring,” the Transportation Secretary noted.

Some 1,550 flights were cancelled and 6,700 were delayed on November 8, up from 1,025 cancellations and 7,000 delayed flights the day before.

Airline officials privately said the number of delay programmes made it nearly impossible to schedule and plan many flights and expressed alarm about how the system would function if staffing issues worsen. The crisis will have its far-reaching impacts on the broader American economy, said White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett.

“Thanksgiving time is one of the hottest times of the year for the economy… and if people aren’t travelling at that moment, then we really could be looking at a negative quarter for the fourth quarter,” he told the CBS show “Face the Nation.”

Trade association and lobbying group Airlines for America, which represents major carriers, said staffing issues had disrupted more than four million passengers’ travel plans since October 1, when the shutdown began. The body estimates the ongoing crisis to have a daily economic impact of USD 285–580 million.

The cuts include about 700 flights from the four largest carriers: American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines, and United Airlines. As the government shutdown continues, some 13,000 air traffic controllers and 50,000 security screeners are working without pay.

The post US aviation in crisis: Flight delays, cancellations accelerate amid air traffic controller shortage appeared first on International Finance.

The company delivers a full spectrum of ground services, ranging from passenger assistance and baggage handling to cargo operations and flight support. Every process is carried out in line with global standards set by ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) and IATA (International Air Transport Association), supported by robust systems and tools designed to ensure precision and efficiency. The goal is not only to offer comprehensive services, but also to consistently uphold the highest standards so that airlines can operate with complete confidence.

The brain leading PATTAYA Aviation towards excellence is its CEO, Nat Boonyavichkanont. With a strong vision to build trust and set new benchmarks in aviation services, he has guided the company’s growth from its early beginnings into a nationwide network serving multiple international and domestic airlines.

Under his leadership, PATTAYA Aviation has strengthened its reputation for safety, innovation, and people-first values. Passionate about sustainability and community impact, Nat Boonyavichkanont continues to drive the company forward by balancing international standards with Thai expertise to deliver excellence across the venture’s operations.

“For us, success is not measured by the number of flights we handle, but by the trust our airline partners place in us every single day,” said Nat Boonyavichkanont while interacting with International Finance.

Innovation has always been a cornerstone of PATTAYA Aviation’s growth. The company actively adopts digital solutions and modern systems to enhance accuracy and timeliness, in addition to exploring future investments that will reshape service standards. From harnessing data insights and optimising logistics to introducing clean-energy practices, every initiative reflects the company’s determination to continue advancing—not just keeping pace with the industry, but shaping a more efficient and sustainable future.

“While technology and innovation are increasingly vital in ground handling, people remain the true heartbeat of our organisation. They are the ones who drive and connect every solution to real operations. That is why we continue to invest in our workforce by building a highly skilled team, empowered by technology, and ready to deliver the best quality for our airline partners,” Nat Boonyavichkanont emphasised.

Supporting this people-first approach is the PATTAYA Aviation Training Centre (PATC), which is an affiliate of the PATTAYA Group. PATC offers internationally aligned training programmes in safety, service, and logistics management, thereby equipping ground-handling professionals with the skills and mindset to work effectively with technology and consistently meet global standards. PATTAYA Group itself has been transformed into a diverse Thai business network spanning aviation, logistics, transportation, and hospitality.

“Our strength comes from the collective synergy of the PATTAYA Group. From cargo and security to training, airport technology, ground transportation, and hospitality, every company in the Group contributes to delivering a seamless experience for our partners,” the CEO noted.

This ecosystem includes PATTAYA Air Cargo (PAC) and PATTAYA Airways (PTW), which expand air freight capabilities; PATTAYA Aviation Security (PSEC), which ensures operational safety; PATTAYA Ai Terminal (PAI), which delivers airport technology solutions; TBJ TRANS (TBJ), which provides nationwide ground transport; and PATTAYA Hospitality Management (PHM), which extends service quality into hospitality through properties such as the Serene Pla Resort & Restaurant in Rayong. Together, these businesses position PATTAYA Aviation not just as a ground handling provider, but as part of Thailand’s end-to-end travel and logistics ecosystem, he stated.

Looking ahead, the company is determined to advance modern and environmentally responsible services, with initiatives focused on reducing carbon emissions and promoting clean energy. This vision is not only about maintaining competitiveness, but also about contributing to a sustainable future for Thailand’s aviation industry and society at large.

“What truly sets PATTAYA Aviation apart is not only its operational expertise, but also the enduring trust it has built with airlines and partners. With international standards, a dedicated team, a culture of innovation, and the collective strength of the PATTAYA Group, the company is ready to grow alongside Thailand’s aviation industry,” Nat Boonyavichkanont concluded.

The post Trusted by airlines, PATTAYA Aviation sets new service benchmarks appeared first on International Finance.

Despite delays and cost overruns, the project was deemed a game-changer for civil aviation, as since its maiden service flight on 21 January 1976 with Air France from Paris-Roissy and British Airways from London Heathrow, Concorde quickly captured flyers’ attention. Transatlantic flights became the main market, with Washington Dulles and New York JFK becoming the operational hubs for these jets. While Air France and British Airways operated 20 such airframes together, they could only operate them for transoceanic flights, as going supersonic, despite more than halving travel times, brought another menace: sonic booms over the ground.

However, the story met a horrible ending on 25 July 2000, when Air France Flight 4590 crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all 109 occupants and four on the ground. Although the remainder of the fleet came back to service eventually, they were retired in 2003, 27 years after beginning their commercial operations.

Since then, aviation geeks have been wondering: Will there be another supersonic passenger jet, or will concerns like deafening sonic booms and exorbitant costs push things back again? However, companies like Boom Supersonic, Spike Aerospace, Exosonic, and Hermeus are bringing the concept back to life.

Promising days ahead?

In August 2022, American Airlines pre-ordered 20 Overture aircraft from Boom, with the option to purchase an additional 40. With a $10 million initial investment, Japan Airlines too followed suit with a pre-order for an additional 20, and United Airlines promised to purchase 15 from the venture.

Boom claims that the jets, which are anticipated to be built in 2025 and make their flight by 2029, will carry 80 passengers on over 600 routes and reduce travel times by up to 50% compared to their subsonic counterparts.

Private companies are not the only ones participating; NASA is developing the X-59, a supersonic aircraft, through its “Quesst” programme. Its purpose is to reduce the noise of the infamous “boom” in order to avoid the problems of the Concorde, which was only permitted to reach supersonic speeds over the ocean.

In order to measure the ground response to the sound, the jet is scheduled to fly over a few residential communities in the United States in 2025. The data will then be submitted to the International Civil Aviation Organisation in an attempt to change noise regulations. Opening hundreds of new airline routes to supersonic travel could result from its success.

According to Boom, passengers could travel from Miami to London in less than five hours, Tokyo to Seattle in four and a half hours, and New York to London in three and a half hours.

According to reports, Spike, which is creating an 18-passenger business jet that might be completed by 2028, is trying to increase speed even more in order to transport passengers from London to New York in as little as 90 minutes.

While Boom is aiming for net zero by 2025 and says Overture will “run on 100% sustainable aviation fuel, making it the first new commercial aeroplane to have such capability,” Spike is aiming for net zero carbon by 2040.

As per Boom, its jets will have “engine updates, without afterburners, and an automated noise reduction system” to ensure takeoff is no louder than subsonic planes. Exosonic, which is developing a 70-passenger aircraft with VIP suites, says its sound will be quieter than that of regular traffic. Both companies are also working on lowering the boom through various technologies.

Battling headwinds

However, not everyone is assured about the prospects of supersonic flights being an instant hit in the coming days. Teal Group Senior Consulting Analyst Bruce McClelland is one of these sceptics.

“The problems are both economic and political. The faster an aeroplane flies, especially supersonically, the more it encounters an exponential increase in drag. That requires a lot more engine thrust, which requires a lot more fuel. Concorde needed as much as eight times more fuel to move one passenger from New York to London compared to a Boeing 747, so that’s expensive,” he said.

“There’s also the cost of developing, building and testing a plane. The development of modern jetliners runs into the multiple billions of dollars. I don’t see there being sufficient demand for a large production run, so it’s going to have to be priced pretty high. Given the physical limits, I don’t see a way to overcome this,” he added.

The United States and the Soviet Union developed but later gave up on supersonic flight due to prohibitively high costs. Concorde was the only successful endeavour, and the French and British governments provided funding for it.

Kevin Michaels, Managing Director of AeroDynamic Advisory, said, “Boeing was developing its own supersonic aircraft back in the 1960s, and it dropped out when it saw that the US government wasn’t going to support it. There are only two airlines that used Concorde, BA and Air France, and it never made money for the manufacturers that produced it. If the manufacturer can’t make money producing it, then it’s not going to be a viable market in the long run. The economics of being part of an airline are what ends up killing you, and that was one of the biggest lessons from Concorde.”

Additionally, there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the engine’s manufacturer. With a statement stating that the commercial aviation supersonic market was “not currently a priority,” Rolls-Royce recently ended its collaboration with Boom. Since then, Honeywell Aerospace, Safran, and General Electric have all declared that they will not be manufacturing the engine.

“That left only Pratt & Whitney, and they said it’s not core to them and their brand, and they’re focusing on other projects. Engines take years and years and years of development, and a brand new one costs billions of dollars. These five companies are the only companies that have a remote chance of pulling this off technologically, so as it stands, Boom doesn’t have an engine,” Michaels added.

Boom is currently developing a purpose-built turbofan engine called “Symphony” for its Overture supersonic airliner.

Ecological issues

Boom will probably encounter more obstacles even if it sorts out the engine hurdle. NASA’s project probably wouldn’t be ready in time for Boom’s anticipated 2029 takeoff, and it’s unclear if the sonic noise problem can be resolved.

Additionally, there is the matter of customer demand. Flights across the Pacific that could have attracted customers are not feasible due to the current supersonic jets’ limited range before requiring refuelling.

Most importantly, a lot of people have questioned the sustainability claims at the moment, as the supplies of sustainable aviation fuel are still scarce.

“The claim that Boom’s flights will be offset by using only sustainable aviation fuel strikes me as stretching credibility. The only way that works is if the producer of a supersonic aircraft has its own source for SAF. Otherwise, operators will be forced to queue up with everyone else and take whatever they can get their hands on, most of which will probably be plain jet fuel. SAF right now is more expensive than regular jet fuel, so it just adds to the operating costs. Right now, known SAF production represents only a small fraction of a per cent of the total worldwide demand for jet fuel, and the most optimistic scenario I’ve seen is that this might ramp up to 30% by 2050,” McClelland said.

There are chances of airlines ending up facing criticism if they use their limited supply of SAF for supersonic travel (pumping multiple times as much fuel per passenger as a regular aircraft). Aerion Supersonic, the massive business jet company that went out of business, is all too familiar with these challenges. A group of industry experts founded the company in 2004, determined to create a $120 million supersonic aircraft that would first take to the skies in 2029. At the time, this project was regarded as the most promising option in the supersonic world.

However, it never built an aircraft and, after 17 years of trying, declared bankruptcy, stating that it was having difficulties in raising capital to achieve the next steps in the manufacture and regulatory approval of the company’s supersonic aircraft.

“Aerion was very highly thought of in the industry. It was aimed at business aviation and charter companies rather than commercial flight, so there was a much smaller capacity. It had a really interesting design, they were extremely well-funded, and they had some of the big OEM manufacturers on board. Then one day, they announced chapter 11 bankruptcy, and it was over. There’s only been one successful entrant into the jetliner business globally, and that’s Embraer in Brazil,” Michaels noted.

Future possibilities

None of this means that supersonic travel will never again be possible. However, the challenges indicate that, should it ever regain traction, the business aviation sector is more likely to see success than large-scale commercial aircraft. That’s at least the opinion of Michaels.

“Demand for supersonic travel is there, but it’s very niche. It doesn’t lend itself to commercial airlines. It lends itself to lower capacities, and ultra-high-net-worth individuals. So, is it something that’s going to revolutionise the airline industry as we know it? I don’t think so,” he said.

There is still hope that we could one day be flying around the world in a few hours and in a semi-sustainable manner if NASA’s project is successful. This is because sustainable aviation fuel will become more widely available, operating costs can be reduced, and supersonic jets can travel farther.

We may have to wait a bit longer before we can hop over to Australia in half a day, though, as reaching that destination by 2029 appears to be more of a marketing gimmick for airlines like United and American.

Supersonic travel remains a captivating vision for aviation’s future. While technical, financial, and ecological challenges persist, ongoing innovations and renewed interest suggest the dream of faster-than-sound passenger flight may yet become reality again.

The post Supersonic jets set for takeoff again? appeared first on International Finance.

In December 2024, US airfares increased at the fastest rate in 21 months compared to the same month in 2023, according to Department of Labour data. The travel research firm ForwardKeys reports that in 2024, airline ticket prices in Europe increased by 6% year-over-year.

In 2025, North American airlines’ net profit per passenger is expected to increase by roughly 15% annually, according to the International Air Transport Association. It is estimated that the net profit per passenger for European carriers will increase by 12% annually. Forced capacity discipline is reflected in rising fares, as the industry’s growth plans have been capped by a shortage of planes caused by production and engine delays.

Due to supply chain issues, Boeing and Airbus have been delivering aircraft slowly. Additionally, several aircraft have been grounded by airlines due to continuous inspections of RTX’s Pratt and Whitney GTF (geared turbofan) engines.

According to the travel data firm OAG, carriers in Europe have 10% of their fleet out of commission due to maintenance and repair problems. With roughly 17% of its fleet out of commission, Turkish Airlines has reduced its capacity by 19% in the current quarter compared to the same period last year, which has led to a 25% increase in average fares.

In January 2025, Ryanair revealed a higher-than-expected profit for the December quarter due to increased pricing power. Limited capacity in Europe may result in higher summer fares, according to CEO Michael O’Leary. Bernstein analysts predict that European carriers’ yearly capacity growth is significantly underestimating the growth in travel demand. They referred to it as “the most promising industry setup in many years.”

Regarding European airlines, these businesses are hoping for a better 2025 after 2024 was marred by spiralling costs and geopolitical instability.

John Grant, senior analyst at OAG, told Reuters that higher ticket prices would translate into improved results for most European airlines in the March 2025 quarter, which historically has been their weakest quarter.

“Most airlines have increased their average selling fares,” Grant said.

In the United States, airlines will be focusing on profitability rather than market share, as the trend has prompted carriers to aggressively reduce their growth plans. This marks a reversal from 2024, when an excess supply of seats in the price-sensitive end of the market sparked an airfare war, hurting earnings.

As a result, annual domestic seat growth this year is expected to be the slowest in at least a decade. United CEO Scott Kirby recently justified the strategic pullback in flying, stating that the path adopted by American carriers will persist for a long time.

“The industry is evolving into an equilibrium where each airline, driven by economic necessity, will be primarily focused on flying where they have a competitive advantage,” Kirby told investors.

American airline executives say households with earnings of $100,000 or more, which account for 75% of air travel spending, are doing well and continue to splurge on travel.

“People want to travel,” Alaska Air’s Chief Financial Officer, Shane Tackett, said in an interview with Reuters, while adding, “They are still prioritising experiences with their budgets.”

Higher ticket prices helped the six largest US airlines expand their margins on average by about 337 basis points in the December 2024 quarter.

The higher prices and increased profitability have led to a rally in American airline stocks. The NYSE Arca Airline index has gained 51% in the past six months, outpacing a 13% jump in the S&P 500 index. United Airlines’ stock has surged by about 155% during the same period.

However, this gain may be short-lived, given the aggressive tariff impositions by US President Donald Trump and the resulting trade wars worldwide, including in Europe. This could lead to further inflation (along with slow growth) on both sides of the Atlantic, forcing travellers to tighten their expenditures.

The post IF Insights: Rising airfares boost profit outlook for airlines in 2025 appeared first on International Finance.

From the Boeing strike and lingering 737 MAX controversies to widespread aircraft shortages and jet delivery delays, 2024 shaped up to be a defining year for aviation. This article provides a comprehensive review of the year’s critical developments and a forward-looking perspective for 2025.

A record-breaking travel

After years of pandemic-induced stagnation, 2024 witnessed a robust recovery in global travel demand. Passenger traffic soared, with IATA reporting an estimated 4.6 billion passengers taking to the skies, an increase of 12% from 2023. Key markets, including North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific, saw record-high ticket bookings as both leisure and business travel rebounded.

Pent-up demand, the easing of travel restrictions, and attractive pricing strategies by airlines fuelled the surge. Notably, international routes experienced a remarkable revival, with Asia-Pacific destinations recording a 30% rise in tourist arrivals compared to pre-pandemic levels.

However, this sharp uptick exposed underlying vulnerabilities in the industry’s supply chain and operational infrastructure. Airlines found themselves grappling with operational constraints, and airport congestion surged to unprecedented levels during peak travel seasons, leading to frustrations among travellers and challenges for ground staff.

Airports struggled to manage the influx of passengers, with reports of flight delays increasing by 20% compared to 2023. Major hubs such as Heathrow, Dubai International, and Changi faced logistical bottlenecks, prompting calls for accelerated infrastructure upgrades. The rapid recovery also strained the workforce, as airlines and airports raced to recruit and train personnel to meet operational demands.

Supply chain disruptions: A persistent headwind

Supply chain disruptions continued to hamper the aviation sector in 2024. The ripple effects of global semiconductor shortages, constrained raw material supplies, and logistical bottlenecks significantly impacted aircraft production and maintenance schedules. Leading manufacturers like Boeing and Airbus faced mounting backlogs, with combined deliveries falling short of targets by nearly 18%.

A six-week strike at Boeing’s key production facility in Everett, Washington, exacerbated the situation by bringing the manufacturing pipeline to a standstill. Workers’ demands for better wages and working conditions highlighted underlying tensions within the labour force and disrupted the delivery of hundreds of aircraft.

Airlines awaiting Boeing’s 737 MAX and 787 Dreamliner faced operational challenges, compounding the strain on their fleets. Meanwhile, Airbus, though better positioned, faced delays due to its reliance on a global supplier network that continued to experience inefficiencies.

The ripple effects extended beyond manufacturers to maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) providers, who faced mounting challenges in sourcing critical components essential for keeping fleets operational.

Airlines reported significant delays in aircraft repairs, with turnaround times increasing by an average of 25%. This in turn led to prolonged groundings of aircraft and further strained global fleet availability. Airlines had to adjust schedules and rely on older, less efficient aircraft still in service, leading to a surge in operational inefficiencies.

According to industry experts, problems in the supply chain cost MRO providers nearly $10 billion in lost sales. The bigger picture for the economy as a whole is $25 billion when you add in the effects on airlines and suppliers. The delays also created ripple effects across the value chain, as major MRO hubs like those in Singapore and Dubai reported backlogs stretching into months.

Additionally, rising costs for alternative components due to shortages further exacerbated financial pressures, with some airlines resorting to cannibalising parts from grounded planes to meet urgent repair needs. These cascading challenges underscored the urgent need for more resilient supply chain strategies and partnerships to weather future disruptions.

Boeing under the spotlight

Boeing’s turbulent year extended beyond the strike, as the company grappled with renewed scrutiny over manufacturing quality issues. In a significant blow, the FAA flagged anomalies in the 737 MAX’s production process, sparking concerns over safety and compliance. This scrutiny followed high-profile incidents that raised alarm about the model’s reliability, reviving memories of the 737 MAX’s grounding in 2019.

Airline customers deferred orders, and several carriers, including Ryanair and Southwest Airlines, publicly voiced frustrations over delays. Boeing’s efforts to reassure stakeholders, including ramped-up quality control measures and enhanced customer communication, provided some relief but failed to offset the year’s financial and reputational setbacks. Additionally, the company has announced plans to heavily invest in AI-powered monitoring systems to enhance quality control and mitigate future risks. But it will take years for these initiatives to yield results.

The regulatory scrutiny also led to increased oversight of other Boeing models, including the 787 Dreamliner. Delays in certifications for these models caused further disruptions for airlines awaiting deliveries, prompting several carriers to seek compensation for the setbacks. Analysts projected that Boeing’s total compensation payouts could reach $2 billion by the end of 2024.

For airlines, 2024 was a balancing act between meeting soaring demand and contending with aircraft shortages. Fleet utilisation rates hit unprecedented highs, with carriers like Delta Air Lines and Emirates operating at over 90% capacity during peak seasons. However, the inability to procure new jets on time led to widespread cancellations and schedule disruptions.

Industry-wide, airlines reported collective losses exceeding $15 billion, attributing a significant portion to delayed aircraft deliveries. Budget carriers, which rely heavily on narrow-body jets for short-haul routes, were particularly hard-hit. Wizz Air, for example, slashed its growth projections by 20%, citing a lack of available aircraft.

Compounding the issue, jet leasing rates surged by 25% as airlines scrambled for stopgap solutions. Leasing firms capitalised on the crunch, with AerCap and Avolon posting record revenues. However, for many airlines, the higher costs eroded profit margins, further straining their financial health. As airlines pushed older aircraft into service for longer than expected, maintenance costs escalated, resulting in increased fuel consumption and operational inefficiencies.

Airlines also faced challenges in fleet optimisation, with many carriers resorting to using larger jets on shorter routes to manage capacity shortages. While this approach allowed airlines to accommodate passenger demand in the short term, it presented significant drawbacks.

Larger jets operating on shorter routes consumed more fuel per passenger mile than smaller, more efficient aircraft, resulting in increased operational costs. The need for additional crew training and scheduling adjustments to operate these aircraft on unconventional routes exacerbated this inefficiency.

Additionally, the use of larger jets on shorter routes reduced flexibility in scheduling and network planning. Airlines struggled to redeploy aircraft to high-demand routes, which led to suboptimal utilisation of their fleets.

For example, during peak travel periods, airlines reported a 15% decline in the availability of narrow-body jets, which are typically better suited for short-haul flights. This situation created many disruptions, including flight delays and cancellations, as carriers scrambled to balance their resources.

These challenges underscored the far-reaching impact of delivery delays on airline operations, with ripple effects extending to customer satisfaction. Surveys conducted in late 2024 revealed a 20% increase in passenger complaints related to delays and schedule disruptions, highlighting the strain on carriers during this period.

Spotlight on key markets

North American airlines fared relatively well, buoyed by strong domestic demand and strategic cost-cutting measures. American Airlines and United Airlines reported modest profits, driven by high load factors and ancillary revenue streams.

However, labour disputes and fuel price volatility remained persistent concerns. In Canada, the government’s push for stricter carbon emissions regulations added a layer of complexity for carriers.

European carriers grappled with operational inefficiencies and rising regulatory pressures. Legacy carriers like Lufthansa and Air France-KLM struggled to maintain profitability amid mounting competition from low-cost rivals. Significant investment was also necessary for the expansion of the European Union’s green aviation initiatives, which further stretched already limited budgets.

Asia-Pacific has emerged as a promising region, exhibiting strong recovery momentum in international travel. Airlines like Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific capitalised on the region’s reopening, achieving double-digit revenue growth.

However, the slow pace of aircraft deliveries dampened expansion plans, particularly for Chinese carriers. India saw remarkable domestic growth, but infrastructure constraints at major airports hindered operational efficiency.

The Gulf carriers—Emirates, Qatar Airways, and Etihad—continued to dominate the long-haul market, leveraging their strategic hubs. Emirates launched six new routes in 2024, despite capacity constraints, showcasing its resilience.

However, geopolitical tensions and fluctuating oil prices added layers of complexity to their operations. The region also made significant strides in sustainability, with Qatar Airways piloting biofuel-powered flights on select routes.

The industry’s outlook for 2025

As the aviation industry enters 2025, stakeholders remain cautiously optimistic. The following are key trends and developments to watch:

Manufacturers expect supply chain stabilisation as they ramp up production to clear backlogs, with investments in automation and supply chain digitisation aiding them. Airbus has projected a 15% increase in deliveries for 2025, while Boeing aims to restore its credibility with a renewed focus on quality and transparency. Collaborative efforts between manufacturers and suppliers to build more resilient networks are likely to gain traction.

The push for greener aviation will gain momentum in 2025. Airlines and manufacturers are investing heavily in sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and electric propulsion technologies. IATA has set a target for SAF to constitute 10% of global jet fuel use by 2030, with incremental progress expected this year. We anticipate that regional collaboration to establish SAF supply chains will play a key role in achieving these targets.

Carriers will prioritise fleet renewal to enhance efficiency and reduce costs. The introduction of next-generation aircraft, such as the Airbus A321XLR and Boeing’s anticipated 797, could redefine market dynamics. We expect fleet modernisation programmes to closely align with sustainability goals, incorporating lightweight materials and more efficient engines.

Financial pressures may drive consolidation within the industry. Smaller airlines could merge or form alliances to achieve economies of scale and withstand competitive pressures. Collaborative regional partnerships aimed at optimising route networks and resource sharing are likely to emerge as a trend.

Digital transformation will remain a key enabler for growth. We expect airlines to differentiate themselves in a competitive market by leveraging AI-driven analytics, contactless solutions, and enhanced customer experiences. We also anticipate that predictive maintenance technologies and real-time operational monitoring will reduce downtime and enhance fleet reliability.

Governments and private stakeholders are expected to invest in airport infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the rising number of passengers. Expansion projects in regions such as Asia-Pacific and the Middle East will focus on addressing capacity constraints and improving the overall travel experience.

The post Airlines battle delays amid travel surge appeared first on International Finance.

According to the reports, November 2024’s agreement between Airbus and CFM comes after a competition between repair shops and aircraft manufacturers for limited engines or parts.

It is anticipated that CFM will transfer some engines that were originally assigned to the aftermarket to Airbus. Although the exact number of engines was not immediately known, the agreement gives Airbus more confidence that barring other supply disruptions, it can move closer to achieving the delivery targets of “around 770” aircraft for 2024, which are generally regarded as difficult.

“We are working hard to meet demand from our customers and to maximise fleet utilisation,” said a spokesperson for CFM, jointly owned by GE Aerospace and Safran.

“We are working with our suppliers, including our engine suppliers, to deliver on the commitments,” an Airbus spokesperson said.

According to a senior industry source, airlines hoping to alleviate lengthy wait times for engine repairs for their current aircraft may be disappointed by the deal, which is anticipated to reduce recent tensions between Airbus and CFM over engine supply.

In a statement while in Belgium, Safran CEO Olivier Andries affirmed that CFM had temporarily given Airbus priority over airlines to supply the Airbus assembly lines in time to guarantee additional aircraft deliveries in 2024.

“In a difficult ramp-up, it’s true that in recent weeks we have tended to allocate engines to Airbus, precisely to allow it to deliver as many planes as possible,” Andries said when asked about an earlier version of this article, as reported by AFP.

Meanwhile, in other news, Airbus is looking to finalise the readiness of jigs and tools on its A350 final assembly line over the next six months to handle the manufacture of the freighter variant of the twinjet type.

“Designated the A350-1000F, the freighter is sized between the -900 and -1000 passenger versions and this, along with its specific design features, has required a reconfiguration of stations on the Toulouse assembly line,” FlightGlobal reported.

Airbus expects final assembly activity to commence in 2025. The airframer’s French and German aerostructures operations, Airbus Atlantic and Airbus Aerostructures, are manufacturing the initial large sections of the cargo aircraft.

The European aviation giant is also filing associated regulatory requests, as it has sought the granting of special conditions from the US FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) regarding the carriage of up to 11 personnel in the supernumerary cabin behind the cockpit, as well as the pilots’ seats, and cockpit emergency exits.

Airbus has already confirmed orders for 55 aircraft and Etihad Airways has recently reportedly exercised options on three more. Work began in 2023 to modify eight stations on the final assembly line to handle the freighter, and Airbus says the primary changes were completed by the end of October 2024.

The post Desperate to meet production, Airbus gets much-needed engine boost from CFM appeared first on International Finance.

For the twenty-four remote Australian locations without direct connection to any other airline, losing the airline would be devastating. Additionally, it would result in even less competition in the highly consolidated domestic aviation industry. Only three airline groups operate more than 85% of the routes.

However, Bonza did not find herself in this predicament by accident. Errors in judgment were probably a major factor from the start.

What went awry?

Bonza introduced a small fleet of Boeing B737 jets into the Australian market. However, these had no lower operating costs than the B737s that Qantas, Virgin, and Rex already used. Furthermore, Bonza’s little fleet lacked any scale advantage compared to crew or aircraft scheduling.

Second, the airline used a completely different strategy, putting the app first, to sell tickets. Customers could only look for and purchase tickets directly through the official Bonza app. However, this meant that prospective buyers could frequently not find Bonza flights when using traditional search methods like search engines or booking websites.

The fact that Bonza found it difficult to acquire momentum on its flights to Gold Coast airport, which welcomes a sizable 250,000 domestic travellers each month, highlights this problem with the business strategy.

Thirdly, although Bonza provided service to a distinct set of destinations, its network-wide flight schedule was far from ideal. Certain routes had only one weekly flight, in contrast to the far more regular gateway city services offered by Rex and QantasLink.

It may be feasible for European airlines such as EasyJet or Ryanair to operate fewer than daily flights to smaller tourist sites. However, these airlines are large and connected enough to provide passengers with several network routes. Short regional routes are not the mainstay of their economic plan, in contrast to Bonza.

The success of a jet airline depends on maximising three critical elements: territory, airport accessibility, and market size. Australia provides a harsh starting point for aspiring low-cost carriers on all three fronts.

Market proportions

Airlines offering low-cost and ultra-low-cost services have established themselves well in Southeast Asia, the United States, and Europe. However, compared to Australia, these markets are orders of magnitude bigger.

For instance, the US provides airlines with a market of sizable cities spread out over a vast region. The populations of Miami (6.1 million), Houston (7.1 million), Chicago (9.6 million), and New York are getting close to 20 million.

Nearly 450 million people live in the European Union. Furthermore, there are more than 30 European cities with a population of one million or more, including the United Kingdom. There aren’t many cities like that for Australian carriers.

Australia lacks the range of secondary airports that European low-cost carriers have used to access adjacent markets and reduce operating costs, as well as the population density of Europe.

Airport accessibility

The next major obstacle low-cost and extremely low-cost market entrants must overcome is airport access. Most major routes connecting major Australian cities run into Sydney are all concentrated along the east coast.

Aircraft movements at Sydney Airport are artificially limited to 80 takeoffs and landings per hour during peak hours by regulations, which also place significant restrictions on the use of the airport. The incumbent operators retain the majority of the slots.

London Heathrow, on the other hand, is a limited two-runway airport that can handle 88 movements per hour.

Some alleviation from this capacity constraint will be available upon completion of the new Western Sydney Airport. It won’t, however, change the reality that Sydney Airport is subject to an operational restriction.

Geographical reasons

The final limitation in Australia is geographic. They have a line of big cities on the East Coast, unlike Europe, the US, or Southeast Asia. There isn’t a hub that links our larger cities with other regional locations.

The populations of towns too far away for easy access by rail or road are frequently too tiny to allow regular, let alone profitable, flights to the larger centres.

Small “turboprop” aircraft can operate with success on some regional routes. The cost per passenger to operate these is higher than that of passenger aircraft that connect the major cities. However, operating larger aircraft on these itineraries is insensible if the flights are only half full.

Walk down memory lane

The 1990s end of Australia’s two airlines programme, in which two similar corporations, one private and one public, maintained identical fleets and timetables, was expected to boost competition. A litany of failures has occurred.

The first major example was Compass Airlines, which began in 1990, failed in 1991, was revived in 1992, and crashed in 1993. Tigerair, OzJet, Strategic Airlines, and others have come and gone since then.

As Impulse Airlines showed, Qantas acquisitions are the best for tiny airlines. Impulse was a regional airline from 1992 until 2004 before Qantas bought it and started Jetstar. Qantas uses Jetstar as a “flanker” or “fighter” subsidiary to prevent low-cost competitors while maintaining its premium brand status.

Virgin Australia, which took much of Ansett Australia’s market, is the only serious competitor. Even that was uncertain. Although the Morrison government wanted Virgin to fail at the start of the COVID pandemic, Bain Capital saved it. Qantas, always the recipient of political favours, has refused to repay billions in public help.

More disappointing than surprising is Bonza’s departure. However, the lack of actual rivalry in the Australian airline business is unexpected. The “golden triangle” (Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane) has some of the world’s busiest flights and passengers. Four, six, or more airlines provide similar routes. Australians can fly Virgin, Qantas, or Jetstar.

This hurts customers. Australians rarely have a choice of three or four airline groups, yet the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found lower fares. As competition decreases, airfares rise considerably.

Another 1980s and 1990s neoliberal microeconomic reform programme failure is the greater story. Much of the country’s political class still romanticises this Hawke-Keating and Howard-era programme. However, most Australians now see it as a failure, and politicians are responding.

Failures like financial deregulation, privatisation, and outsourcing policy to consulting firms are easy to identify but harder to fix. After the Chris Minns-led New South Wales government exposed private toll roads’ devastation, calls for renationalization have grown. The failure of the National Electricity Market and privatisation has forced states to generate electricity again.

Restoring a two-airline regime is unwise for the aviation sector. Instead of waiting for the market, competition must be enforced.

The most crucial step is forcing Qantas to sell Jetstar. Not easy. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese calls compelled divestiture for competition regulators a “Soviet-style” policy. Whether Stalin would have liked better competition legislation, it’s hard to see another method to abolish the near-monopoly that is much of the Australian industry.

Restoring public authority over landing and takeoff slots at Australia’s privatised airport system is more realistic but still tough. The administration is reviewing the system to make it more welcoming to newcomers. As Bonza joins the long list of failures, new entrants are unlikely to arrive soon.

Setbacks for regional Australia

Australia’s tiny population, the capacity restrictions placed on Sydney Airport, the existence of powerful existing airlines, and the East Coast market’s linear structure all contribute to the difficulty of new entrants.

After Ansett collapsed, Virgin Blue took over the space. However, two iterations of Compass, Impulse, Tiger, Air Australia, and Ozjet failed as market entrants. Even Air New Zealand decides not to do domestic operations in Australia despite having the fleet, strong brand, and market access necessary to justify joining the country.

Australian regional towns might take little comfort in knowing why new entrants fail. However, capital city travellers hoping for increased competition on the main East Coast routes won’t see much difference because of Bonza’s tiny footprint.

According to Michael Kaine, national secretary of the transport workers union, “Bonza must ensure staff are prioritised and informed as this process plays out.”

Along with criticising the “unchecked corporate greed” in the aviation sector that has resulted in higher tickets, Mr. Kaine issued a warning to carriers, saying that they “have little chance of survival” in the competitive market.

The post Bonza’s collapse highlights new airline issues appeared first on International Finance.

“Is it fixable and salvageable? Yes, it is. Will it get things back to where it needs to be? It must. And you’ll only do that with very strong leadership, who are fixated on doing the right thing,” Emirates Airline President Tim Clark told reporters on the sidelines of a major airlines summit, as reported by the Zawya.

It might take five years to turn around the manufacturer following a string of safety and industrial issues so that it can smoothly meet both new and existing demand, Clark noted further.

Boeing announced that CEO Dave Calhoun would step down by the 2024 end, following the crises in the aviation giant that were unfolded by the blowout of a loose door plug on an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 aircraft in January of this year.

As a result, the company is currently searching for a new CEO. One of Boeing’s harshest critics throughout the crisis, Clark told Reuters he had never met Calhoun, the CEO who took over in January 2020 after two 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019 claimed almost 350 lives.

“I think that people who have got a really broad aerospace engineering capability, who are good business managers as well, are the people that you need to bring back and sort this one out. Whether Stephanie Pope is going to be able to step up and do that (as well as) anybody, time will tell,” Clark said.

“But we need aeroplanes, we cannot face constant delays. We’ve got a business to run and if we’re having to foot the bill for refurbishing all these (existing) aeroplanes it should be put at Boeing’s door,” he added, while suggesting that the plane maker should foot the bill for Emirates’ multibillion-dollar programme to retrofit the latter’s 777 wide-body jets amid delays in the development of the newer 777X version.

The delays in the new wide-body aircraft’s development programme have forced the Gulf carrier to put additional Boeing 777s through retrofit and the airline boss wants Boeing to pay for the extensive refurbishment it is undertaking.

“We need our aeroplanes, we cannot face constant delays, we’ve got a business to run and the bill for refurbishing all these aeroplanes should be put at Boeing’s door,” Clark noted.

In May 2024, Emirates announced completely refurbishing another 28 Boeing 777 aircraft, after the original plan called for 53 777s to undergo a full makeover.

“The Boeing 777-9 model is about five years late and was scheduled for delivery in 2025, but Emirates currently has no visibility on the latest time frame of when it can be handed over,” Clark said.

At the Dubai Airshow in November 2023, Emirates signed a deal to put orders for 55 additional Boeing 777-9s and 35 Boeing 777-8s. The airline’s 777X order book currently has a total of 205 jets, making it the biggest buyer of Boeing wide-bodies.

However, Boeing will need five years to address the problems arising from its current safety and quality crisis before meeting plane production demand from new and existing customers, according to Clark.

The post Boeing needs strong CEO to end crisis, says Emirates boss amid 777 delays appeared first on International Finance.

International flights cannot be delayed on the tarmac for more than four hours without giving passengers a chance to disembark, according to federal law and government regulations.

According to the department, a Volaris flight in Houston in 2021 stayed on the tarmac for an extended amount of time without letting passengers off. A comparable event took place in St. Louis in 2022.

Volaris will pay USD 150,000 of the fine, and if it breaks the tarmac rules once more in a year, it will have to pay the remaining USD 150,000. Similar fines have been imposed by the department recently.

“This enforcement action reflects our ongoing commitment to protecting consumers and holding airlines accountable,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a statement, SaltWire reported.

According to Volaris, “The saturation of air terminals was the reason for the delays. Volaris fully complies with the laws and regulations applicable in all the countries in which it operates, prioritising the safety of passengers and maintaining strict operational control.”

In January 2023, the department announced that it intended to pursue stiffer penalties from airlines and other violators of consumer protection laws, citing the need to discourage similar offences in the future.

The largest-ever fine of USD 4.1 million for breaking the rule was imposed on American Airlines in August for forcibly keeping thousands of passengers on the tarmac for hours.

American informed the department that the delays were caused by unusual weather, and that the 43 affected flights accounted for less than 0.001% of the roughly 7.7 million flights that were conducted.

The department fined British Airways USD 135,000 in April 2023 for failing to guarantee the prompt deplaning of passengers during a 2017 tarmac delay.

The post Tramac delay in Houston: Volaris Airlines fined up to USD 300,000 appeared first on International Finance.