Trump administration sanctions Mexico over air carrier trade pact
The department said Mexico has not been in compliance with the airline competition agreement since 2022 when it took back some slots for flights for U.S. air carriers at Benito Juarez International airport in Mexico City and forced U.S. cargo planes to shift their operations to other parts of the city.
'Since 2022, Mexico has altered the playing field significantly for airlines that reduce competition and allow prominent competitors to gain an unfair advantage in the U.S.-Mexico market,' a release from the Transportation Department said. 'The United States and Mexico have an air services agreement... that commits both parties to a liberalized operating environment for all airlines...Mexico has walked away from its commitments.'
Mexico has said it rescinded the slots to make room for construction at the airport, but the work has yet to materialize three years later, the transportation department contended.
'By restricting slots and mandating that all-cargo operations move out of [Mexico City International Airport], Mexico has broken its promise, disrupted the market and left American businesses holding the bag for millions in increased costs,' the release continued.
The 'America First' actions enacted by the Trump administration require Mexican airlines to file schedules with the transportation department for all of their U.S. operations, mandate prior DOT approval before operating any large passenger or cargo aircraft charter flights from the United States and addressing anti-competitive issues in the market.
Mexico seized slots from U.S.-based carriers American Airlines, Delta Airlines and United Airlines, as well as from three Mexican airlines -- Aeromexico, Viva Aerobus and Volaris -- to make room for the construction.
'Despite repeated outreach from the Department, Mexico has not provided any information regarding when these slots would be returned or any major construction projects at MEX will ever materialize,' the release continued.
Duffy added that the United States is also reviewing trade agreements with other countries to determine if they are being violated, including pacts with some European nations.
Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
WSFS Financial Second Quarter 2025 Earnings: EPS Beats Expectations
WSFS Financial (NASDAQ:WSFS) Second Quarter 2025 Results Key Financial Results Revenue: US$254.9m (up 3.5% from 2Q 2024). Net income: US$72.3m (up 4.4% from 2Q 2024). Profit margin: 28% (in line with 2Q 2024). EPS: US$1.27 (up from US$1.16 in 2Q 2024). Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period WSFS Financial EPS Beats Expectations Revenue was in line with analyst estimates. Earnings per share (EPS) surpassed analyst estimates by 12%. Looking ahead, revenue is forecast to grow 6.6% p.a. on average during the next 2 years, compared to a 7.5% growth forecast for the Banks industry in the US. Performance of the American Banks industry. The company's shares are down 3.1% from a week ago. Balance Sheet Analysis While earnings are important, another area to consider is the balance sheet. We have a graphic representation of WSFS Financial's balance sheet and an in-depth analysis of the company's financial position. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why does the White House want to redesign gas cans? Explaining the situation
The White House says it wants to 'Make Gas Cans Great Again.' Under a plan announced July 24 by President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency, the federal government is encouraging manufacturers to add vents to portable fuel containers, also known as gas cans. It would effectively reverse a 2009-rule by federal environmental officials at the time that required portable gas cans - used for lawnmowers, chainsaws, ATVS and stranded vehicles - to have special vents that stop the vapors from escaping. Proponents of that rule - which was finalized in 2007 - said the vapors that escape contributed to ozone pollution. But the 2009 rule created an online market for pre-ban gas cans among buyers dissatisfied with the new cans. Why does Trump want to redesign gas cans? 'Gas cans used to pour gas,' Trump's head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, said on X, formerly Twitter. 'Now they just dribble like a child's sippy cup.' But many modern designs are often infuriatingly ineffective at actually filling tanks because the vents work so poorly, critics argue. Instead of stopping vapors from flowing out the complicated spouts and relief valves, the new designs often cause gasoline spills, which some critics say are far worse than a tiny amount of vapor escaping from an older design. Some rules for gas cans will still remain in place Other rules for gas cans have to remain in place under federal law, like making sure they're child-resistant and limiting the risk of flash fires. What happens next for gas cans? The EPA's announcement is non-binding for manufacturers and doesn't prohibit the vents. Rather, the EPA is asking manufacturers to redesign the gas cans to have vents 'to facilitate fast and smooth fuel flow.' This article contains material from USA TODAY Daniel Munoz covers business, consumer affairs, labor and the economy for and The Record. Email: munozd@ Twitter:@danielmunoz100 and Facebook This article originally appeared on Gas can redesign considered by Trump White House. Here's why
Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
ICE Is Overplaying Its Hand. We've Seen It Happen Before.
Out of this breach emerged the Compromise of 1850, a grand bargain designed to preserve the Union. Under its provisions, California entered the Union as a free state, but the citizens of other former Mexican territories were left to make their own determinations about slavery. Congress abolished the slave trade, but not slavery, in Washington, D.C. And, in return for these concessions, Southern politicians secured what would prove to be the most incendiary component of the deal: the Fugitive Slave Act (FSA) of 1850. The new act inspired widespread disgust throughout the North. The law stripped accused runaways of their right to trial by jury and allowed individual cases to be bumped up from state courts to special federal courts. As an extra incentive to federal commissioners adjudicating such cases, it provided a $10 fee when a defendant was remanded to slavery but only $5 for a finding rendered against the slave owner. Most obnoxious to many Northerners, the law stipulated harsh fines and prison sentences for any citizen who refused to cooperate with or aid federal authorities in the capture of accused fugitives — much in the same way the Trump administration has threatened to jail persons who impede its immigration raids. Before the FSA, formerly enslaved people were able to build lives for themselves in many northern communities. They found homes, took jobs, made friends, started families, formed churches. But after the FSA, they were permanent fugitives — and anyone who employed them, associated with them or provided them housing were accomplices. Early enforcement made immediate martyrs of ordinary people and pierced the illusion that slavery was just a Southern problem. In 1851 federal agents in Boston arrested Thomas Sims, who had escaped enslavement in Georgia, and marched him to a federal courthouse under guard by more than 300 armed soldiers to prevent a rescue. For Boston, a city whose history was steeped in the struggle against King George's standing army, it was an ominous display. Sims' hearing was, just as the law intended, shambolic, and he was ultimately returned to Georgia. (He would later escape a second time during the Civil War.) Want to read more stories like this? POLITICO Weekend delivers gripping reads, smart analysis and a bit of high-minded fun every Friday. Sign up for the newsletter. That same year, Shadrach Minkins, a waiter who had also fled enslavement to Boston, was seized in broad daylight. This time, word traveled fast, and a local 'vigilance committee' — interracial groups formed to monitor and, when necessary, resist enforcement of the fugitive slave law — assembled, with an eye toward liberating the accused man. Awaiting a hearing in federal custody, Minkins was suddenly rescued in a dramatic confrontation witnessed by attorney Richard H. Dana, Jr. 'We heard a shout from across the courthouse,' Dana recalled, 'continued into a yell of triumph, and in an instant after down the steps came two negroes bearing the prisoner between them with his clothes half torn off, and so stupefied by his sudden rescue and the violence of the dragging off that he sat almost dumb, and I thought had fainted. ... It was all done in an instant, too quick to be believed.' Minkins made it to Montreal, where he lived the rest of his life in freedom.
