Ryanair cancels more than 800 flights due to conflict in Middle East
Last week, flights were halted at Dubai airport in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as passengers were told to expect further delays and cancellations.
On Wednesday, Ryanair said it still operated more than 109,000 flights in total in June, indicating that fewer than 1% of flights were affected.
The Ireland-based business said it carried 19.9 million passengers over the month, representing a 3% increase on the same month last year.
It said this means it has carried 202.6 million passengers over the past 12 months, up 7% year-on-year.
Elsewhere, rival London-listed airline Wizz Air also reported a significant rise in passenger numbers.
It said it carried 5.88 million passengers in June, up 10.8% against the same month last year.
Its seat capacity was 10.4% higher year-on-year as a result.
Wizz said it has carried around 65 million passengers over the past 12 months rolling, up 4.7% year-on-year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
13 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Cash Isa bickering masks the real crisis for savers
The debate about whether Rachel Reeves should or should not limit the amount that people can save into a cash Isa has been heated. A good argument can be made that too much money has sat in low-yielding cash accounts that could be working harder in the stock market. But many people still feel, with some justification, that this is just another raid on prudent people trying to do the right thing. The problem with this debate is that most people expressing an opinion have a dog in the race. The Chancellor says she wants people to earn more on their savings – of course she does. But she also has her eye on £300bn of idle cash that would provide a useful boost to the growth promise on which she was elected if it were redirected towards UK-listed companies. That cash would also raise a useful amount of fresh revenue if, as is more likely, it simply moves from a tax-free cash account to a taxable one. You may not be surprised to learn that banks and building societies view that same money as a funding source for the mortgages and other loans they offer. They, therefore, make the case for precautionary saving, and they highlight the danger of putting money to work in the market that you might need soon to pay for a wedding, school fees or a house move. It is no surprise that their counterparts in the asset management and investment platform industry (full disclosure: that's me) prefer to focus on the historical outperformance of stock market investments over cash. We warn that holding too much cash for too long poses a different kind of threat to your financial security. We are all right, of course. There is a place for both cash and investments in our financial lives. The bigger problem is that most people don't understand financial risk. So they don't know how much importance to attach to the arguments on either side of this debate. Or what the right balance of cash and shares should be for them. Reeves highlights one risk of holding too much cash. Doing so usually means you are paying too high a price for certainty. You prefer a return of your money to a return on it. Which is reasonable for some of your savings, but not for all of them. Everyone should set aside a cash buffer before they start to think about investing in the stock market. But once they have done that, there is no reason to park any more in cash. How big that cushion should be is harder to say – it will vary according to your age, your ability to find new work if you lose your job and many other factors. Most people don't know how much cash they should sensibly hold. Consequently, some will hold too little and others far too much. But there is a long list of other risks over which they don't have a good grasp either. And, until they do, tweaking contribution limits may make less of a difference than the Chancellor hopes. You can lead a horse to water, as they say. There are a few things we, as an industry, have not done a great job of explaining. The first is the difference between volatility and risk. Volatility is the natural ups and downs of the market. This is only ever a risk if we sell our investments in response to a fall in their value and crystallise the loss. The stock market fell 20pc between February and April. But unless you sold at the bottom, you won't care now because it quickly recovered. Another point of the cash buffer is to prevent the next risk – being a forced seller. You should always have enough cash in the bank to be able to ignore short-term market volatility. Or to actively desire it as a chance to buy assets at a discount to their real value. Holding that cash is a first step towards avoiding another poorly understood risk: putting our eggs in too few baskets. One of the reasons I have been able to shrug off the market's change of heart on US assets this year is that America is only a part of my portfolio. Yes, there have been times in the past 10 years when I wished it was a bigger part than it was, but broad diversification has felt like a pretty good strategy in the first half of 2025. The biggest risk for most people when it comes to investing (or saving, come to that) is to put it off. I often tell a story about twin sisters, one who starts saving young and one who for too long finds other things to spend her money on. The prudent sister gets to a point in mid-life when she has so much capital that further saving is largely pointless. The other, meanwhile, can never catch up, no matter how long she keeps putting money aside. The point rightly made by the pro-investment lobby is that achieving the first sister's happy state is really only possible by tapping into the stock market's superior returns. The final risk that very few people properly understand is the ravage of inflation. Even those of us who think about how much we might need to fund our retirement fall into the trap of thinking about this in today's money. What we need to understand is that even at the Bank of England's 2pc target for inflation, the pot we manage to accumulate will buy us half as much in 36 years' time as it does today. At 3pc inflation, our purchasing power will halve in just 24 years. This is the strongest argument for shares over cash, which in the long run tends only to match, not beat, inflation. So while I support the Chancellor's desire to get people more focused on their investment returns than the return of their investments, this is just the start of it. Informing people how to save and invest sensibly is more important than bickering over whether they should do so via cash or the stock market.
The Herald Scotland
33 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Is Scottish Government secretly working to kill off Ardrossan harbour?
Everyone who has made travel plans will have to adjust accordingly or cancel, including visitors from far and near heading for a major Gaelic festival, Ceòlas, in South Uist. Mallaig and Oban are 87 miles apart, while accommodation tends to be at a premium in July. Just their luck – one more example of consequences which continues to be visited upon people and islands. This fresh wave of cancellations and redeployments stems from the basic fact that the CalMac fleet has been run aground in terms of numbers and maintenance, despite millions being spent, quite literally in some cases, on plugging the holes. CalMac say plaintively: 'We are doing the best we can to maintain service levels with the vessels available to us during this period'. Read more As I never tire of pointing out, CalMac are more sinned against than sinners. They are at the sharp end of delivery while the real culprits are the Scottish Government (aka Transport Scotland) and its procurement quango, CMAL, which have failed to provide the routine flow of vessels required. Ferries which are a decade and more past their natural lifespan are worked harder and harder, with predictable consequences. After three years of setting its face against any compensation for businesses, the Scottish Government noticed there is an election coming up and conceded through gritted teeth a 'resilience fund' for the worst-hit islands. Arran is included but, not being an island, Ardrossan is not. Yet there are few places that have endured more economic pain than the port which had been the gateway to Arran for 185 years. What distinguishes the case of Ardrossan is that it is, in my belief, the victim of a long-term strategy to extinguish its role and thereby, to a large extent, its raison d'etre. Other places in the CalMac network are victims of incompetence and political opportunism even if nobody set out to do them harm. The case of Ardrossan is different and those responsible should be exposed and their objective, even now, frustrated. The story goes back to 2015 when Troon – part of Associated British Ports – lost its Northern Ireland connection when P&O dropped its Larne route. Desperate to plug the gap, they offered the Scottish Government £8 million to transfer the Arran service to Troon. There is no retrospective wisdom involved here as I wrote at the time that this initiative was 'solely at the behest of Associated British Ports, which has lost its Irish services and needs a substitute. It is blatantly opportunistic'. CalMac will restart a limited and temporary service (Image: free) ABP should have been shown the door. By this time, what later became the Glen Sannox had been ordered from the Ferguson yard, specifically to operate between Ardrossan and Brodick. There should have been no room for doubt but ABP, to my certain knowledge, had friends at court. The Transport Minister, one Humza Yousaf, ordered a review, which set the hare running. A campaign was mounted in defence of Ardrossan and, ostensibly, it prevailed. But it didn't really. When the Glen Sannox was ordered, it was supposed to be operational by 2018 so obviously, it was necessary for CMAL to be in negotiation with the owners of Ardrossan, Peel Ports. Otherwise, how could it happen? Due to events at the Ferguson yard, there was then a seven year delay in delivering the Glen Sannox – but in the course of these nine years, not a finger was lifted to secure the status of Ardrossan. On the contrary, the quiet transition to Troon continued to be encouraged, supposedly to give temporary cover while awaiting Ardrossan's readiness. For good measure, in October of last year, the Transport Secretary, Fiona Hyslop, appointed Stuart Cresswell who, until 2023, had 'full operational responsibility for all of ABP's port operations in Scotland including the Port of Troon' to the board of CMAL. But like I say, there is an election coming up and my old constituency of Cunninghame North is up for grabs. The votes of Ardrossan will be significant so on February 19, Ms Hyslop 'instructed Transport Scotland and CMAL to explore a potential purchase of Ardrossan Harbour'. Little has been heard of this since. I was curious to learn how much substance there was to this 'instruction', so I lodged a Freedom of Information request with CMAL, asking to see the exchanges between them and the Scottish Government about Ardrossan in recent months. This week I got the response, with around 95 per cent of the content redacted on the catch-all grounds that 'the balance of public interest lies in withholding the information'. Read more However, one interesting line had either slipped through the net or been left in deliberately, in which the chief executive of CMAL, Kevin Hobbs, wrote, the week following Ms Hyslop's instruction: 'We do not believe and have expressly stated that resilience at Ardrossan (given the entrance through the roundheads and turn) will never be as resilient as Troon given the open sea approach'. In other words, the chief executive of CMAL could hardly have been clearer that they have no interest in pursuing what, in public, has been their obligation and the Scottish Government's aim. So the question now is whether Ms Hyslop's 'instruction' is ever intended to prevail? I make no claim to nautical expertise but that is not the issue at stake. The real question is whether, consistent with Mr Hobbs' comments, CMAL and Transport Scotland have been (and still are) working to ensure that Ardrossan never again will be the gateway port for Arran. If that is the case – as I believe it is – the people of Arran and Ardrossan have, for the past decade, been cynically and cruelly deceived. To that, I object strongly – and call for an inquiry into the full circumstances, without evasions or redactions. Brian Wilson is a former Labour Party politician. He was MP for Cunninghame North from 1987 until 2005 and served as a Minister of State from 1997 to 2003
Daily Mail
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Starmer denies Reeves cried over him, says she'll remain in her role
Sir Keir Starmer today denied making Rachel Reeves cry and backed her to remain his Chancellor 'into the next election and for many years after' - saying she has done an 'excellent job' - following her tears in the Commons yesterday. The Labour MP looked crushed and sobbed in the chamber, triggering a new political and economic crisis, amid rumours she was about to be sacked after the Prime Minister refused to back her at PMQs. But last night Sir Keir denied a rift between them and said her tears had 'nothing to do with politics' or Labour's embarrassing U-turns on benefits - insisting she cried over something 'personal' without expanding further. 'That's absolutely wrong,' he said. '[it's] nothing to do with what's happened this week. It was a personal matter for her, I'm not going to intrude on her privacy by talking to you.' Asked if he was going to sack her, he went on to insist that Ms Reeves would remain in government - with him as PM. 'She's done an excellent job as chancellor and we have delivered inward investment to this country in record numbers. She and I work together, we think together', he said. 'In the past there have been examples - I won't give any specifics - of chancellors and prime ministers who weren't in lockstep. We're in lockstep.' The Chancellor is said to have told Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle she was 'under so much pressure' minutes before taking her seat for an extraordinary session of Prime Minister's Questions. She was forced to listen in silence as Sir Keir Starmer refused to say in front of MPs that she was secure in her job, as he was battered over his welfare surrender to Labour rebels. But the the truth about her tears is yet to be revealed. In an extraordinary moment that spooked markets, tears appeared to roll down Ms Reeves' cheek as Kemi Badenoch demanded a guarantee she would stay in No11 - something the premier did not give. She was seen being comforted by her sister Ellie - also a Labour minister - as she left the chamber, although Sir Keir did not speak to her. Ms Reeves' spokesman insisted afterwards that it was a 'personal matter' and he would not be 'getting into' the reasons. Downing Street said the Chancellor 'is going nowhere', had not resigned, and retains Sir Keir's 'full backing'. No10 and No11 both denied claims Ms Reeves had an argument with Sir Keir before they entered the Commons. Last night, Sir Keir told BBC Radio 4's Political Thinking show he worked 'in lockstep' with Reeves and she was 'doing an excellent job as chancellor'. But the Guardian reported that she told the Speaker about the strain she was under. She apparently broke down when she was privately rebuked by Speaker Lindsay Hoyle for giving long answers during Treasury questions yesterday. Health Secretary Wes Streeting (pictured) last night said Ms Reeves has 'toughness and hard-headedness... in spades' as he spoke out in support of the Chancellor. 'It's why with the choices she's made, not always the most popular choices, is creating the conditions for our economy to grow,' he told ITV's Peston. Mr Streeting added Ms Reeves has 'something going on personally, not professionally'. 'It's easy to forget that we're all humans as politicians and we have lives like everyone else,' he continued. Interest rates on 10-year and 30-year gilts - effectively the cost of government borrowing - spiked and the pound slipped sharply against the US dollar as the Commons scenes unfolded earlier. Just a year on from his election landslide, Sir Keir's authority has been left in tatters after his extraordinary surrender to avert defeat at the hands of Labour rebels. Ms Badenoch said he had made 'mistake after mistake', highlighting volte faces over grooming gangs and winter fuel allowance. She also pointed to a visibly-upset Reeves, sitting next to the PM, saying she looked 'miserable' and was being used as a 'human shield'. Last night Sir Keir effectively tore up his benefits reforms, which had been due to shave £5billion a year off spirallling costs by the end of the Parliament - but will now actually increase spending by £100million. The move heaped misery on Ms Reeves, who was already struggling to fill a black hole in the public finances that could amount to tens of billions of pounds. Touring broadcast studios this morning, Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden warned there would be 'financial consequences' - hinting that the tax burden will need to rise again. Ms Reeves has insisted Labour will stick to manifesto pledges of no hikes to income tax, employee National Insurance or VAT. And she had been adamant that she will not break her 'cast iron' fiscal rules. But she refused to guarantee yesterday that the hated freeze in tax thresholds will not be extended. In highly emotional scenes at PMQs, Ms Badenoch said: 'This man has forgotten that his welfare bill was there to plug a black hole created by the Chancellor. Instead they're creating new ones. They're creating new ones. '(Ms Reeves) is pointing at me, she looks absolutely miserable. Labour MPs are going on the record saying that the Chancellor is toast, and the reality is that she is a human shield for his incompetence. In January, he said that she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?' Sir Keir replied: '(Mrs Badenoch) certainly won't. I have to say, I'm always cheered up when she asks me questions or responds to a statement because she always makes a complete mess of it and shows just how unserious and irrelevant they are. She talks about the black hole, they left a £22billion black hole in our economy and we're clearing it up, and I'm really proud that in the first year of a Labour Government, we got free school meals, breakfast clubs, childcare, got £15 billion invested in transport in the North and the Midlands. We're cutting regulation, planning and infrastructure is pounding forward, building 1.5 million homes, the biggest investment in social and affordable housing, and of course the three trade deals.' Mrs Badenoch replied: 'How awful for the Chancellor that he couldn't confirm that she would stay in place.' Challenged afterwards why Sir Keir failed to give Ms Reeves the vote of confidence, the PM's press secretary said: 'He has done so repeatedly. The Chancellor is going nowhere. She has the Prime Minister's full backing. He has said it plenty of times, he doesn't need to repeat it every time the Leader of the Opposition speculates about Labour politicians. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister are focused entirely on delivering for working people. It's thanks to the Chancellor's management of the economy that we managed to restore stability, which has led to four interest rate cuts, wages rising faster than inflation and she recently delivered a spending review that invested in Britain's national renewal.' Asked whether the Prime Minister still had confidence in Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall (pictured), the press secretary said: 'Yes.' A spokesman for the Chancellor said: 'It's a personal matter which, as you would expect, we are not going to get into. The Chancellor will be working out of Downing Street this afternoon.' Aides to Speaker Lindsay Hoyle refused to comment on claims he had a row with Ms Reeves shortly before the PMQs session began. But MPs believe Sir Lindsay only rebuked Ms Reeves for giving excessively long answers at Treasury questions yesterday, with the Speaker surprised that she immediate became upset. The pair had already exchanged words on the subject during the session yesterday. One MP told MailOnline that the cause was a spat with the PM before that clash. 'There has been a major row before, just before she walked in. I think it was with Keir,' they said. However, both No10 and No11 denied that there was any argument between Ms Reeves and Sir Keir. After the session, Mrs Badenoch's spokesman said 'personal matter doesn't really clear it up' and 'you normally tell people what the personal matter is'. He added: 'I'm not going to speculate… I think we should find out what's going on.' Labour circles have been in a frenzy over how the Chancellor will handle the crisis in the public finances. One MP said: 'She is in massive trouble. This government has lost control. It is the worst politics of anybody - it doesn't matter whether you are left or right. Governments get this after four years, but we're not even at one year.' Rather than leaving the Commons immediate after PMQs as usual, Sir Keir remained on the estate for about two hours having meetings. Meanwhile, rebel ringleaders gloated that they had 'power' over the PM and stepped up demands for a lurch to the Left. Rachael Maskell (pictured), whose fatal amendment sparked the benefits shambles, urged a £24billion 'wealth tax' to pay for more handouts. Deputy PM Angela Rayner (pictured) is said to have brokered the deal with rebels, fueling speculation that she is positioning to succeed Sir Keir. Opponents jibed it is obvious that Sir Keir will not now lead the party into the next election. Appearing on ITV's Lorraine show, Ms Rayner insisted she did not want the top job, joking that it would 'age me by 10 years'. Told that Sir Keir looked 'tired' and 'exhausted', she said: 'It's a very challenging job. To be fair for Keir Starmer there's been a lot going on... There's a lot going on and the PM's been here there and everywhere doing the job for Britain.' Amid carnage at Westminster yesterday, the PM's carefully assembled truce with rebels dramatically disintegrated. Facing the threat of a massive revolt, Sir Keir opted to make yet another major concession just 90 minutes before the vote. Ministers pledged that changes to disability handouts will not be finalised until after a review - meaning that the package as it stands will actually make the current system more expensive than before up to 2029. Sir Keir - who is days away from marking the first anniversary of his election landslide - had already agreed that the benefits curbs would only apply to new claimants. There was mocking laughter in the chamber as Social Security Minister Stephen Timms (pictured) was asked how much the proposals would save now, and merely replied that the government would 'set out figures in the usual way'. Despite the humiliating manoeuvres, when the vote was held 44 Labour MPs still backed the fatal amendment and others abstained - although it was comfortably defeated by 328 to 149 as Tories largely stayed away. Shortly afterwards, the Bill cleared second reading stage by 335 to 260, with the rebellion growing to 49. It will now be scrutinised at committee, where there could be further problems. Mr McFadden told BBC Breakfast he is 'not going to speculate' on what could be in the Autumn Budget but there would be 'financial consequences'. 'This is one moving part of the budgetary picture, it does have a financial consequence yesterday,' he said. 'I'm not going to speculate on where the budget lands, because there are so many other different moving parts in it, and it wouldn't make sense for me to do that.'
