Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol is defending the company&#8217;s high-priced drinks, arguing that customers are willing to pay for what he calls a “luxury experience.” 
Speaking The Wall Street Journal&#8217;s What&#8217;s News AM podcast, Niccol said Starbucks is performing well across income levels, even as some drinks approach $9.
“We’re doing really well with Gen Z and millennials, and then really had strong performance across all income cohorts,” Niccol said. “It can start with as little as $3 for a traditional cup of coffee. And then obviously you can build your way into all sorts of customized drinks that people love that move that ticket up.”
<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DXuSJRDidDg/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14">
<div style="padding: 16px;">
&nbsp;
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DXuSJRDidDg/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by The Wall Street Journal (@wsj)</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
When asked whether concerns about a so-called K-shaped economy could impact sales, Niccol said Starbucks isn&#8217;t seeing signs of strain. 
“What we’re seeing is people, they want to have a special experience, and regardless of what your income level is,&#8221; he said. &#8220;In some cases, you know, a $9 experience does feel like you’re splurging. And then, what that means  is we have to make it worthwhile, right?”
In other cases, he added, customers view Starbucks as an affordable premium option.
“They’re saying, ‘Well it’s less than $10 and I get a really premium experience,&#8217;” Niccol went on. “So, regardless of where you’re stationed in those income cohorts, we want to make that experience worth your while.”
Niccol also described a visit to Starbucks as “a moment of escapism,” adding that customers value consistency across price points.
“I think people actually really do appreciate knowing, “Hey, if this is a $3 cup of coffee or a $5 latte, I know I’m going to get a great experience for that $5 experience, I’m in,” he added.
Many commenters called the exec out of touch.
“This video just confirms how detached from reality those people are. [Starbucks] IS NOT a premium experience, nor is the coffee worth $9,” one person wrote. 
“I&#8217;ll pass on this premium experience,” another agreed.
A third commenter quipped, “Friends don’t let friends drink Starbucks.”

Oatmilk Latte

$9 Pitched As ‘Affordable Luxury’ And Americans Aren’t Buying It

Business

Coffee

Economy

Starbucks

People in Britain often say that the United States is much like the United Kingdom. Recent polling by Freshwater Strategy showed that the British public thinks that the U.K., as a country, would be the 7th richest U.S. state. The actual 7th richest state, North Dakota, boasts a GDP per capita of $102,000 compared to the U.K.’s $52,000.
Many Brits assume that in both economies most people are poor, while a small number of individuals accumulate vast wealth at the top. In this myth, the U.S. suffers from the same perceived problem as Britain of inequality without wider prosperity.
The uncomfortable reality, however, is that the average Brit is significantly poorer than most Americans.
By GDP per capita, parts of America that are routinely described as economically lagging outperform the British economy. Even Mississippi, often cited as the poorest state, has a GDP per capita of $54,000. That should be a sobering benchmark. This is not a story about inequality in Britain but about weak national wealth creation.
Britain retains the self-image of a rich country but its underlying performance tells a different story — one of high taxes, vast regulation, weak productivity growth, and poor incentives for entrepreneurs.
This reality has shaped the political climate. Between 2008 and the E.U. referendum in 2016, living standards stalled. The Brexit vote was, in part, a collective response to that stagnation and a demand for a different economic trajectory. Leaving the E.U. was never a growth strategy in itself but rather an opportunity to pursue one.
In this respect, Brexit was — and still is — a fork in the road. Britain has greater autonomy over its regulatory, tax, and trade policy. The question is whether that autonomy is used to drive growth or not. My forthcoming story of the Brexit referendum, <a href="https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/ten-years-on">Ten Years On</a>, chronicles the campaign and what has happened since.
<div id="attachment_1087613" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1087613" class="size-large wp-image-1087613" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2271018760-864x576.jpg" alt="Pedestrians walk across the Millennium Bridge above the River Thames in central London on April 16, 2026. Britain's economy grew much stronger than expected in February, prior to the start of the Middle East war, official data showed on April 16 ahead of a likely hit from the US-Iran conflict. (Photo by Henry NICHOLLS / AFP via Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2271018760-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2271018760-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2271018760-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2271018760.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Henry NICHOLLS / AFP via Getty Images</div>
In some areas, Britain has benefited from its post-Brexit freedoms. Examples of this range from tech, where being outside the E.U.’s regulatory regime has allowed the U.K. to be more nimble, to healthcare, where we can now approve new drugs far faster. Overall, however, we have not made as much of these freedoms as we should have. 
Critics blame Brexit for Britain’s economic stagnation, but much of it stems from longer-term policies that have held back prosperity.
The preconditions for entrepreneurship are not new, nor are they particularly complicated. I recently co-authored a book with Dr. Arthur B. Laffer and others called <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Prosperity-Through-Growth-Standards-Disinformation-ebook/dp/B0FP3WPW6Z/ref=sr_1_1?crid=RCU8GVEQ5895&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Qi7pfmaBWI3SOK7ThVB1F6kdMIM62-7Uwj6luPyjVkDKKI54VPK7IVlT1dVJfFQu.OQ-kNm7gXECxObiXcJrN6HqpotDFqUx2dulfB9kD06w&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=prosperity+through+growth">Prosperity Through Growth: Boosting Living Standards in an Age of Autocracy and AI.</a> We argue that growth requires low tax rates, low government spending, sound money, smart regulation, and free trade.
Ultimately, prosperity is generated not redistributed. The focus of economic policy should be incentivizing entrepreneurship rather than redistribution. Without economic growth, debates about inequality become zero-sum.
Britain’s problem isn’t that wealth is unevenly distributed. It is that the overall economic pie has grown too slowly for too long. And that pie is being cut into ever more pieces with the explosion of migration to the U.K.
This explains a paradox that defines modern Britain. All the fundamentals are there, but the incentives often discourage entrepreneurship. Inequality becomes more visible not because of a few too rich people but because the middle is comparatively squeezed.
Americans, on the other hand, enjoy higher median incomes. Take plumbers, for example, who earn $62,000 on average in America, compared to $43,000 in Britain. As President Kennedy once said, &#8220;A rising tide lifts all boats.&#8221;
The danger is that the debate remains focused on distribution rather than growth. Framing Britain as a country with a few very rich people and many struggling households risks misdiagnosing the problem.
A more accurate diagnosis is that Britain is an underperforming advanced economy. It has the capabilities to be significantly more prosperous than it currently is, but has failed to convert those capabilities into sustained growth.
The implication is straightforward. If Britain wants to meaningfully raise living standards, it must prioritize policies that incentivize growth.
The European Union referendum result reflected a demand for change. Whether that demand ultimately leads to greater prosperity depends not on the act of leaving the E.U., but on what we do with the freedoms that followed. Ironically, when critics of Brexit cite studies suggesting that the U.K. economy would be 8% bigger had it stayed in the E.U., those studies assume Britain would have grown at the same rate as the United States in the period since 2016. 
I look forward to seeing the British people enjoy the same pro-growth policies and prosperity that Americans enjoy.
* * *
Matthew Elliott is President of the Jobs Foundation and is a member of the House of Lords. He was also the Chief Executive of Vote Leave.

TOPSHOT-RACING-ENG-ASCOT

Britain Could Be Richer. It Keeps Choosing Not To Be.

Brexit

European Union

Great Britain

United Kingdom

The Treasury Department aims to curb financial illiteracy after devastating data reveals that over two-thirds of Gen Z cannot answer half the questions on the nation’s Personal Finance Index. 
In response, the Treasury Department is working to address widespread financial illiteracy, particularly among younger Americans. Marking the end of Financial Literacy Month, the Treasury Department welcomed schools from the Washington D.C. area into the historic Treasury Cash Room. The two schools competed in a contest where multiple-choice questions were presented on the screen, and the kids worked together to answer economy-based questions. 
One of the students told The Daily Wire that she plans to take the information she learned back home to share it with her parents.
The event was designed to draw attention to the Treasury Department’s efforts in improving financial literacy through the launch of Trump Accounts and other efforts like the U.S. Mint&#8217;s Coin Classroom, a free website that houses interactive games and videos that teach kids about money.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized that financial literacy is essential to achieving the American Dream. He argued that the Trump Accounts for children would not only create savings early in life but also teach financial literacy through a hands-on approach.
According to Bessent, kids and parents will be able to follow their Trump Accounts together through a mobile app that will teach them directly about how investments grow and compound. For the first 18 years of their lives, kids can watch their accounts and investments grow over time, ensuring an interactive and personalized financial learning experience. 
Surveys suggest that there is a strong demand among younger Americans for this type of education. A poll from Junior Achievement found that <a href="https://jagkc.org/68-percent-teens-want-financial-education/">68%</a> of teenagers want financial education, and a poll by Intuit shows 89% of parents believe personal finance should be a required high school course. 
Along with an education, the accounts also bring children into the ownership economy. “Trump Accounts represent the triumph of capitalism over socialism,” Bessent said. “Through Trump Accounts, our President is creating an ownership economy where all citizens become shareholders in America’s wealth.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) echoed that sentiment, arguing the program could reshape how young Americans view capitalism.
“We have all seen the sad statistics of how many kids are losing faith in capitalism. Ten years from now, a little boy will pull out his phone and look at this app and he’s gonna see his Trump Account. Instead of thinking of big, bad scary corporations, that little boy is gonna say, I own $50 of Apple, I own $100 of Dell, I own $75 of McDonald’s … that will transform this country.” 
More than 5 million children have reportedly been enrolled in the program.

Group of people using smartphones outdoor, wide short low angle view

They Can Scroll All Day But Can’t Manage Money

Personal finances

Citadel CEO Ken Griffin has signaled he might nix his company’s $6 billion Midtown construction project over tax policy.
Citadel’s Chief Operating Officer Gerald Beeson slammed New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s recent “Tax the Rich” video in which the mayor promoted a new tax policy, invoking Griffin as an example.
“It is shameful that he used Ken’s name as the example of those who supposedly aren’t carrying their fair share of the burdens associated with New York City’s often costly and wasteful spending,” said Gerald Beeson. “In doing so, the mayor has once again manifested the ignorance and disdain of the elite political class towards those who have been consistently committed to building one of the greatest cities in the world.”
If the company moves forward with the construction project, it is expected to create 6,000 high-paying jobs and support 15,000 permanent jobs in Midtown Manhattan, but a recent email to employees hinted it may be halted.
“The project—if we move forward—will entail more than $6 billion dollars of spending,” the email read.
Pershing Square Capital Management CEO Bill Ackman also weighed in, arguing that Griffin contributes significantly to the city without placing demands on its resources.
“Importantly, non-resident owners of NYC apartments who leave them vacant for much of the year are not a burden on NYC schools, services, or other resources, while they drive growth in retail sales, restaurants, theater, and other important sectors of our economy,” Ackman said. “They also often support NYC nonprofits with donations.”
Ackman concluded with a warning, saying the mayor’s policies “will harm the constituencies he is supposedly trying to help.”
Mamdani ran his campaign on taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it in the form of city services like free buses and free childcare.
Figuring out how to pay for these policies has led to challenges for Mamdani, as his authority to levy taxes ends at New York City’s property tax — though the mayor constantly lobbies New York Governor Kathy Hochul to raise taxes.
The pied-à-terre tax that Mamdani claimed would apply to properties like Griffin’s $238 million penthouse is an example of how the mayor is exploiting new revenue sources. The new tax will apply to homes in New York City valued over $5 million. It is expected to raise $500 million, which will allegedly help address the $5.4 billion deficit the city is currently facing.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani Interview

68 Seconds And Taxpayers Are Out $6 Billion?

Bill Ackman

New York City

Politics

Taxes

Zohran Mamdani

A new poll finds that a plurality of Gen Z would hop in a time machine and leave their life behind as many young people grow disillusioned with modern technology and increasingly pessimistic about their economic futures.
If given the option, nearly half (47%) of 18-29-year-olds said they&#8217;d choose to live in the past, according to an <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28059030-genz-nbc-news-decision-desk-poll-march-2026-topline/">NBC News Decision Desk Poll</a>. One in three surveyed said they’d pick a time period less than 50 years ago, while another 14% would choose more than 50 years in the past. Only 38% of young people said they’d prefer to live in the present.
Members of this generation, born in 1997 or later, yearn for an era “right before social media and computers mediated life,” Clay Routledge, a nostalgia researcher and existential psychologist, said in an <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/discomfort-modern-technology-gen-z-desire-live-past-poll-rcna340897">interview with NBC News</a>.
Ben Isaacs, a 20-year-old Colorado student, said he’d choose to live in the 1990s, arguing smartphones are eroding young people’s ability to connect face-to-face and live beyond “the realm of the phone,” according to NBC.
The survey captures Gen Z’s deepening dissatisfaction with the country’s trajectory, social cohesion, and their financial futures.
A whopping 80% of Gen Z—more than any other generation—said the United States is headed in the wrong direction, according to the NBC poll, and 62% expect their lives will be worse than those of previous generations.
Plus, a majority rated the economy—especially inflation and the cost of living—as their top political concerns.
Artificial intelligence, which is transforming the higher education landscape and entry-level job market, is adding to the uncertainty and economic anxiety. <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/704087/college-students-weigh-impact-majors-careers.aspx">One in six college students</a> has changed their major because of AI, and 48% of Gen Z workers now say its negatives outweigh its benefits—an 11-point increase from 2025, according to a recent Gallup poll.
Unemployment among recent college graduates has risen since the pandemic, reaching 5.6% at the end of 2025 and extending well beyond the humanities, according to the <a href="https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:explore:unemployment">Federal Reserve Bank of New York.</a> Computer engineering now has one of the <a href="https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:explore:unemployment">highest unemployment rates</a> among college majors at 7.8%, a sharp reversal from 2021, when it ranked among the lowest at 3.2%.
Economic, cultural, and political turbulence is helping drive a cultural shift among some young people, especially men. Another Gallup poll released this month indicates that young men have become more religious in recent years.
<a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/708410/young-men-religious-young-women.aspx">The survey</a>, released April 16, finds that 42% of men ages 18–29 now say religion is “very important” in their lives, up sharply from 28% in 2022–2023. Monthly religious attendance among young men also rose to 40% from 33%, the highest level in more than a decade, surpassing women for the first time.
&#8220;When there’s a lot of disruptions — political divisiveness, or, you know, worries about AI or other kinds of societal, technological or social, cultural changes — people tend to become more nostalgic for the past to help them with the things that they’re worried about,” <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/discomfort-modern-technology-gen-z-desire-live-past-poll-rcna340897">Routledge told NBC</a>.

Teens in circle holding smart mobile phones – Multicultural young people using cellphones outside – Teenagers addicted to new technology concept

Why Gen Z Wishes They Could Time Travel

Gen Z

Polls

Social Media

U.S.

Some conservatives are pushing back against a possible federal government deal to avoid Spirit Airlines’ collapse, as the company struggles to emerge from bankruptcy.
The Trump administration is weighing a $500 million bailout that could result in the federal government taking a significant ownership stake in the budget airline, according to the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/trump-administration-nearing-rescue-deal-for-spirit-airlines-2f6a5556?mod=e2tw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wall Street Journal</a>.
Several Republican lawmakers blasted the idea.
“If Spirit’s creditors or other potential investors don’t think they can run it profitably coming out of its second bankruptcy in under two years, I doubt the US Government can either. Not the best use of taxpayer dollars,” Sen. <a href="https://x.com/SenTomCotton/status/2047075850386804756?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tom Cotton</a> (R-AR) posted to X on Wednesday.
Sen. <a href="https://x.com/tedcruz/status/2047054442332029439?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ted Cruz</a> (R-TX) described the proposal on social media as “an absolutely TERRIBLE idea.”
“The TARP corporate bailouts were a huge mistake &amp; the government doesn’t know a damn thing about running a failed budget airline (that the Biden admin killed),” he continued, referencing the 2008 recession-era Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Outside groups on the Right also weighed in. Advancing American Freedom, an organization aligned with former Vice President Mike Pence, released a memo slamming a possible deal.
“Why should taxpayers bail out one company that has been uniquely unprepared?” the memo asked. “American families shouldn’t be forced to bail out Spirit and the shareholders or pay the bill to see if the federal government can run an airline.”
Labor groups, however, expressed support for the potential federal assistance. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), argued that federal intervention could protect jobs and stabilize the airline.
“Federal relief is not a handout,” said Capt. Ryan P. Muller, chair of the Spirit Airlines ALPA Master Executive Council (MEC). “It is a loan that will allow the airline to finish the work that is already well underway, and it is the right call for 14,000 workers, nearly 2,000 pilots, the families who depend on those paychecks, and the millions of passengers who rely on affordable air travel.&#8221;
On the Left, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) blamed the war with Iran for the airline&#8217;s demise.
&#8220;Donald Trump’s war with Iran caused the sky-high fuel prices that finally did Spirit Airlines in. What do the American people get out of this taxpayer bailout? Will the failed airline executives be held accountable?&#8221; Warren <a href="https://x.com/SenWarren/status/2047057083950899338?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a> on X.
The White House has not confirmed whether a bailout is on the table, but pointed to a Biden-era lawsuit that led to the rejection of the Spirit-JetBlue merger.
“Spirit Airlines would be on a much firmer financial footing had the Biden administration not recklessly blocked the airline’s merger with JetBlue,” White House Spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement.
President Donald Trump told CNBC’s “<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/21/cnbc-transcript-president-donald-trump-speaks-with-cnbcs-squawk-box-today-.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Squawk Box</a>” that he would prefer a private-sector solution, saying he would &#8220;love somebody to buy Spirit, it’s 14,000 jobs.&#8221;
Economist Peter St. Onge of The Heritage Foundation told <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/did-joe-biden-kill-spirit-airlines?author=Cameron+Arcand&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=3&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Did+Joe+Biden+Kill+Spirit+Airlines%3F" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Daily Wire</a> that the merger likely led to the airline&#8217;s decline.
“The main thing that drove them over the edge was blocking the JetBlue merger,&#8221; St. Onge said. &#8220;On the day that it was denied, their stock fell 47%. And the big picture here is that the low-cost carriers can’t pass anything on, right? They have razor-thin margins, like 2 or 3%. So they need scale in order to survive.”

Airplanes Depart

Not Everyone Is On Board With Using Your Money To Bail Out A Failing Airline

Air Travel

Bailouts

Conservatives

Spirit Airlines

Travel

The Trump Administration may offer Spirit Airlines a $500 million financial lifeline as the carrier teeters on the brink of collapse, according to reports. 
The federal government is considering providing the airline with a convertible financing facility that would allow it to convert debt into equity. According to Bloomberg, the arrangement could give the government the option to acquire a significant ownership stake in the airline, potentially as much as 90% of a restructured entity. 
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick are leading the talks and reportedly met with President Donald Trump on Tuesday night to discuss the proposal. 
Trump signaled support for potential federal assistance earlier this week, saying, “Maybe the federal government should help that one out,” while raising concerns about the possible loss of roughly 14,000 jobs.
Spirit Aviation Holdings Inc.’s shares jumped more than <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FLYYQ/">500%</a> following reports of the potential deal.  
Spirit&#8217;s financial troubles date back several years, and the airline has accumulated more than <a href="https://www.wsj.com/finance/spirit-airlines-reaches-deal-with-creditors-to-emerge-from-bankruptcy-4b1ddcee">$7 billion</a> in debt. A planned $3.8 billion acquisition by JetBlue in 2022 was ultimately blocked by the Biden administration&#8217;s Department of Justice and later upheld by a federal judge in 2024. Former Attorney General Merrick Garland <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-statements-jetblue-terminating-acquisition-spirit-airlines?utm_source=chatgpt.com">described</a> the acquisition’s termination as a “victory on behalf of the American consumer,” arguing the merger would lead to increased fares for customers.
More recently, rising fuel costs tied to the war in Iran have added pressure, with JPMorgan analysts estimating those expenses could increase by as much as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/struggling-spirit-airlines-in-talks-with-trump-administration-on-government-investment-0db4f169">$360</a> million.
If negotiations pan out, Spirit Airlines will join a growing list of private companies in which the United States has taken a financial stake in recent years, including Intel, MP Materials, Lithium Americas, Trilogy Metals, and a &#8220;golden share&#8221; in U.S. Steel, recently acquired by Japan’s Nippon Steel.

airplane

Trump Admin Eyes Big Move To Save Struggling Airline

Trump Administration

According to the Wall Street Journal, the antitrust division of the U.S. Department of Justice is <a href="https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/justice-department-is-criminally-investigating-beef-companies-1f91a3c6">investigating</a> whether meatpackers engaged in criminal antitrust conduct. Last November, as consumer beef prices continued climbing, President Trump called upon the DOJ to investigate the practices of meatpackers.
Beef is among America’s most important protein sources, and understanding how beef makes its way to the grocery store reveals why consumers at the end of the beef supply chain and farmers and ranchers at its beginning are highly susceptible to foul play.
Think of the beef supply chain as a sand-filled hourglass. The sand-filled top represents the start of the beef supply chain, with the sand itself representing hundreds of thousands of widely dispersed, independent, family-scale cattle farmers and ranchers scattered across America. Now cattle grow slowly, and from the time they are born until they reach their optimal slaughter weight takes upwards of two years.
As the cattle grow, they flow downstream in the hourglass and are eventually transported from their distant, wide-open grassy birthplaces to large pens called feedlots, where they are congregated. Most feedlots are in the central and southern plains regions of the United States, and when cattle arrive, they are fed a highly concentrated diet that fattens them to slaughter weight.
<div id="attachment_1082193" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1082193" class="size-large wp-image-1082193" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-1230785175-864x576.jpg" alt="A heifer and her calf in a field at the Barthle Brothers Ranch in Dade City, Florida, U.S. on Friday, Jan. 22, 2021. Cattle and calves on feed for the slaughter market in the United States for feedlots with capacity of 1,000 or more head totaled 12.0 million head on January 1, 2021. The inventory was slightly above January 1, 2020, The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported. Photographer: Ty Wright/Bloomberg via Getty Images" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-1230785175-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-1230785175-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-1230785175-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-1230785175.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Ty Wright/Bloomberg via Getty Images</div>
When fed to their optimal weight, these slaughter-ready cattle are offered for sale to the beef packers at the choke point of the hourglass, as here there are just four dominant beef packers who purchase and control 80% of the 25 million or so slaughter cattle entering the choke point each year. Of course, these same dominant packers also control 80% of the resultant beef that passes on through the choke point, which they then sell to grocery stores scattered across America for ultimate purchase by consumers.
It is at this highly concentrated and centralized choke point — the point at which the dominant beef packers purchase cattle from the feedlots and convert them into consumable beef — that foul play can cause harm to the cattle farmers and ranchers above the pinch point and consumers below.
For example, if the concentrated beef packers unlawfully collude by agreeing to reduce the number of cattle they will collectively slaughter, cattle will back up in the supply chain above the choke point, effectively reducing demand for cattle and lowering their prices paid to cattle farmers and ranchers. Because slaughtering fewer cattle will result in less beef, reducing the number of cattle the beef packers will collectively slaughter will reduce the available beef supply below the choke point, causing beef prices to increase.
Now it could be argued that colluding to lower cattle prices could result in lower consumer beef prices if the dominant beef packers were to pass their cost savings on to retailers, and ultimately consumers. But history shows otherwise.
Going back for more than four decades, the spread between the prices that farmers and ranchers receive for their cattle and the retail prices that consumers pay for beef has grown increasingly wider. This suggests that firms standing between America’s cattle ranchers and America’s consumers are somehow capturing artificially high profits along the beef supply chain.
How these supra-competitive profits are being extracted from the beef supply chain and by whom is likely a central focus of the DOJ’s ongoing antitrust investigation.
<div id="attachment_1082197" style="width: 932px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1082197" class="size-large wp-image-1082197" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2270117676-922x576.jpg" alt="LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - APRIL 06: Beef ribeye steaks are displayed at a grocery store on April 06, 2026 in Los Angeles, California. Amid persistently high food inflation, the price of a pound of ground beef has risen to between roughly $6.49 and $8.96, often exceeding the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, as supply shortages, drought, and disease affecting cattle herds drive costs higher while wages remain unchanged since 2009. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)" width="922" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2270117676-922x576.jpg 922w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2270117676-300x188.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2270117676-768x480.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2270117676.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 922px) 100vw, 922px" />Justin Sullivan/Getty Images</div>
During the past six years, several private class action antitrust lawsuits have been filed against the four largest beef packers operating in the United States – Tyson, JBS, Cargill, and National Beef Packing Company, alleging they had colluded to suppress cattle prices while simultaneously inflating beef prices. These civil antitrust lawsuits have alleged harm to virtually every segment of the beef supply chain, from cattle farmers and ranchers who sold cattle to the beef packers to consumers, distributors, and retailers who directly or indirectly purchased beef from the dominant beef packers. These private civil actions are still working their way through the court system and have so far resulted in settlements of over $170 million.
In at least one of these civil lawsuits, it is alleged that the dominant packers unlawfully colluded to suppress cattle prices from mid-2015 through early 2020. During that period, retail beef prices trended markedly upward while cattle prices trended downward, an anomaly signaling market failure in the beef supply chain, particularly since the only source of beef is cattle.
The question of whether beef packers engaged in unlawful antitrust conduct will be answered upon the completion of the numerous civil lawsuits pending against them and the result of the DOJ investigation. The outcome of the DOJ investigation alone will determine if principals representing the beef packers also engaged in criminal antitrust conduct.
* * *
Bill Bullard is the CEO of R-CALF USA in Billings, Montana.

Bloomberg Best Of The Year 2025

Who’s Taking The Prime Cut Of America’s Beef Prices?

Affordable

Donald Trump

Farmers

Food prices

grocery prices

meat

Price Gouging

There is a current tendency to blame free markets and technology for dyspepsia with the economy, as if there is a nefarious group of people destroying your way of life.
People are literally trying to attack data centers.
As David Friedberg noted on the “<a href="https://x.com/theallinpod/status/2046280245758787914">All-In Podcast</a>”:
<blockquote>Most people in America are starting to really hate rich people. And there&#8217;s no physical space that better represents the wealth in America, the wealth creation that&#8217;s happened that a lot of people feel left behind from, than the data center. It is the temple of the wealthy. It is the way that the rich, elite, tech, kind of political, connected billionaires that we&#8217;re obviously all attached to are taking from the poor, getting themselves ahead, shooting themselves to space, leaving everyone else behind, and the data center, I think, is the representation of their progress. And it is a representation of the progress that others don&#8217;t feel.
For a consumer&#8217;s life to actually be altered in a meaningfully positive way, most people don&#8217;t feel that yet. The best thing they see is some medical advice they&#8217;re getting on ChatGPT or something, and that&#8217;s kind of the end of it for them. So I think there&#8217;s a lot of this populism that&#8217;s swollen and that&#8217;s taken over, not just the US, but probably a good chunk of the West. And the data center is the target.</blockquote>
David Friedberg&#8217;s explanation is exactly right. This is the way that economic populists have been pushing.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-ep-2410?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Let’s differentiate between moral and economic populism. Moral populism was exemplified by William F. Buckley back in the 1960s when he stated that he would trust the first 100 names in the Harvard phone book on matters of public policy more than he would trust 100 Harvard professors.
The idea was that the common man in the United States — shaped as he or she was by the institutions of church and family and community — had a better moral compass, on average, than the elites.
I totally agree with that, because elites very often believe that they have been freed from these systems of morality.
However, when it comes to the economy, economic populism is virtually the inverse. Economic populism assumes that there should be some sort of centralized control placed into the hands of that central power by “the people,” and centralized control should overwhelm the disseminated knowledge that is implicit in free markets and capital markets.
The basic principle of capitalism is that disparate views on things lead to better outcomes, that differential knowledge and the diffusion of knowledge are actually significantly more effective than one guy at the top with a stick beating people into submission.
But economic populism says that free markets are bad if the product of the free market is something I don&#8217;t like, therefore, we should take power away from the free market to destroy it.
Whenever there is economic unease, people tend to attack free market capitalism, or what they see as the symbols of free market capitalism, and they tend to blame people who are wealthy.
The great lie is that people in the United States are wealthy because they&#8217;re stealing from the poor. It is a full-scale lie. It is not true.
The only places in the world where people are rich because they steal from the poor are communist countries and other forms of tyranny. The reason people get rich in a free market economy is because they are providing products and services at a price people are willing to pay. People want that product or service.
But if you can somehow recast the economy of the United States as “rigged” on behalf of the wealthy and go after the means of production, you target data centers.
What you are going to end up doing, in this view, is overthrow the capitalist system.
The outcome of that will be quite dire.
There is a grievance-based, horseshoe-theory economic Right that is also wildly upset about artificial intelligence data centers because they&#8217;re big and ugly.
You know what else is big and ugly? Walmart — but it’s wonderful for the vast majority of consumers.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman&#8217;s home was allegedly targeted in the second attack in just two days; a shot was even fired. This is part and parcel of a broader movement that is targeting technology more generally, including technologies that are required for the United States to win wars.
City Journal <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/palantir-protests-ice-national-security?utm_source=virtuous&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=cjdaily">reported</a> there is a campaign against the military contractor Palantir — which generates extraordinary technologies in terms of intelligence gathering, capacity to target, and much of the actual technology that goes into the machines that we use.
This crosses paths with all of America&#8217;s enemies. America&#8217;s enemies are delighted to watch us destroy ourselves by taking down the technologies that allow us to win.
If you buy into this entire shtick — the idea that AI as a technology must be destroyed — it won&#8217;t be destroyed.
We&#8217;ll just lose.
If you think that China is going to forgo AI, you&#8217;re a fool. They won’t.
If the United States were to heavily restrict AI, not just in terms of preventing its gravest harms, but restricting the development of AI, or if there were to be a political party that attempts to prevent the building of data centers, not for any sort of understandable economic reason — like, for example, make the data centers pay their fair share of electricity production, which I think is a fair argument — if there&#8217;s a broad scale movement to destroy the AI industry out of either misplaced agrarianism or a deep and abiding hatred for capitalism or the generalized belief that capitalism rots the human soul, we will lose.
If the United States heavily restricts AI, not just by preventing its gravest harms but by restricting its development, we will lose. If a political party tries to stop the construction of data centers, we will lose. That is different from making data centers pay their fair share for electricity production, which I think is a fair argument. But if there is a broad-based movement to destroy the AI industry out of misplaced agrarianism, a deep and abiding hatred of capitalism, or a generalized belief that capitalism rots the human soul, we will lose.
China wins.
This is not a vacuum. It is not as though if the United States forgoes AI magically, we would continue to have a burgeoning, wealthy economy, and China goes weapons down.
When it comes to AI, indeed, there are problems, there are dangers — and we should all recognize those dangers, not whistling past the graveyard — but at the same time, it is a tremendous opportunity.
A China in a dominant AI position means a China in a dominant military position. The amount of AI that is being used right now by the United States military in the conflict in Iran and in the operation in Venezuela is tremendous and growing.
If China outpaces us in AI development, that means their military is now superior to ours. If their military is superior to ours, that means they can not only effectuate change in their region, it means they can also spread that technology throughout the world and make other countries dependent on the receipt of that technology.
It means that many, many other countries all over planet Earth would suddenly become dependent on China.
That is a huge problem, and it also leaves China in a dominant economic position, because AI means more productivity. If productivity goes up for China but remains stagnant for the United States, they will outcompete us. If they outcompete us, one of two things happens: Either we block off our economy and become backward and protectionist — meaning we don&#8217;t have any of the best goods and products and services at the best price, we&#8217;re all poorer and we slide into poverty and stagnation — or we have to be dependent on Chinese products, our kids work for Chinese companies, and China is able to spread its influence.
When it comes to the game of economics, you must win.
When it comes to the game of military dominance, you must win.
And when it comes to the technological game, you must win.
The economic populism that&#8217;s been rising says that we ought to tariff our way out of all our problems, that we ought to attack technological development, that it would be great to have an economy based on t-shirts — none of this is going to solve the bigger problem.
Attacking tech CEOs or healthcare CEOs or burning up Teslas and attacking Tesla showrooms or shooting Charlie Kirk or attempting to shoot President Trump — all of these are the most extreme manifestations of an ideology.
That ideology says that you are a victim of American society and therefore you get to do bad things. On a broader political level, you are a victim of American society, and therefore you ought to get together with the other victims, take over the government, and use centralized, tyrannical power r to cram down your view of the world.

Working robots

Populist Rage And AI: National Surrender

Anti-capitalist

Artificial Intelligence

Ben Shapiro

Big Tech

Capitalism

China

Data Centers

Opinion

Populism

Technology

President Donald Trump admitted during a Tuesday interview that when he decided to take military action against Iran, he had expected oil prices to rise even higher than they have.
The president faces daily pushback over the rising oil prices tied to the conflict with Iran, but as he explained on CNBC, he had been prepared to weather even harsher criticism because he thought prices could potentially surge as high as $200 per barrel.
“If you would have told me that oil was at $90 as opposed to $200, I would be frankly surprised,” said President Trump, explaining that while the hotly-contested Strait of Hormuz is certainly important, people have found other sources for oil. “It’s an amazing phenomenon but when there are problems, people find out how to take care of things.&#8221;
If oil prices do reach Trump&#8217;s predicted $200 per barrel, they would be above record pricing. Oil prices peaked at $150 per barrel back in 2008 — which would be equivalent to about <a href="https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2008?amount=150#:~:text=%24150%20in%202008%20is%20equivalent,cumulative%20price%20increase%20of%2053.37%25.">$230</a> per barrel today. Oil prices, currently at $90 per barrel, are the highest they have been since 2022. 
Trump said he had also expected the stock market to be in a worse position due to the hostilities in the Middle East: “Look at the S&amp;P 500 Index — it’s trading at exactly the same level as when we began all this. I thought it would drop 20% or more, and that oil prices would be much higher — but I’m pleased to say that hasn’t happened.”
The President explained that he felt he had to make the decision to allow the market to take a short-term hit in order to avoid one in the long run. 
“When I hit 50,000 on the DOW and 7,000 on the S&amp;P, I said I hate to do this to everybody, but I’m going to have to journey down to a place called Iran and make sure they don’t have a nuclear weapon because they will blow up the world,” Trump said, adding, “You want to see a bad stock market, try blowing up the Middle East then Europe and then they come for us.” 
Oil futures are signaling that, within the next six months, oil could drop back down to <a href="https://www.cmegroup.com/insights/economic-research/2026/implications-of-wti-oil-futures-in-backwardation-amid-the-supply-crunch.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com">pre-war prices</a>. Late 2026 futures have traded around $40 per barrel, and overall expectations suggest oil prices will fall to the mid-$70s by year&#8217;s end.

President Trump

Trump Braced For Oil Prices To Skyrocket As Iran Tensions Rose

Iran

Oil and Gas

President Donald Trump pushed back on his own energy secretary&#8217;s gas price prediction on Monday as Americans continue to get pinched at the pump.
Trump said Energy Secretary Chris Wright is &#8220;totally wrong&#8221; after Wright told CNN on Sunday that average gas prices in the United States could stay above $3 into 2027.
&#8220;I think he’s wrong on that. Totally wrong,” Trump told The Hill.
The president added that gas prices would start dropping “as soon as this ends,” referring to the ongoing conflict with Iran.
During an interview on Sunday, Wright said he wasn&#8217;t sure when exactly gas prices would start coming back down, but predicted, &#8220;That might not happen until next year.&#8221;
“But prices have likely peaked and they will start going down,” Wright added. “Certainly, with a resolution of this conflict, you will see prices go down. Prices across the board on energy prices will go down.”
Gas prices appeared ready to drop late last week when oil prices tumbled to under $90 per barrel shortly after Trump and Iran announced a ceasefire that would allow ships to traverse the Strait of Hormuz. The agreement to open the strait, however, was short-lived as Iran said on Sunday that it was once again blocking ships in response to Trump keeping the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports in place.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard attacked two oil tankers over the weekend, and shipping traffic through the strait came to a standstill once again, CNBC <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/20/strait-hormuz-ship-tanker-oil-iran-war.html">reported</a>.
Brent crude jumped back up to over $95 per barrel on Monday morning, and average gas prices in the United States remain above $4 per gallon as of Monday afternoon, according to <a href="https://gasprices.aaa.com/">AAA</a>. Recent <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/poll-trumps-approval-rating-hits-second-term-low-economy-iran-war-rcna331462">polls</a> indicate that many Americans are <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3956">frustrated</a> with the sharp rise in gas prices that followed Trump&#8217;s decision to launch &#8220;Operation Epic Fury.&#8221;
Democrats have attacked the Trump administration over the rise in gas prices, with Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/19/world/middleeast/energy-secretary-gas-prices.html">saying</a> on Sunday, “Americans literally can’t afford the Trump presidency.” At $4.04 per gallon on average, gas prices are at their highest level since June of 2022, when President Joe Biden was in office.
Vice President JD Vance is expected to meet with Iranian officials in Pakistan this week for another round of negotiations as the ceasefire is set to expire at 8:00 p.m. EST Tuesday. Trump said on Monday that he feels &#8220;no pressure whatsoever&#8221; to secure a deal with Iran.
&#8220;Time is not my adversary, the only thing that matters is that we finally, after 47 years, straighten out the MESS that other Presidents let happen because they didn’t have the Courage or Foresight to do what had to be done with respect to Iran,&#8221; he said.

President Trump Holds Roundtable On The Ratepayer Protection Pledge At The White House

Trump Says His Energy Secretary’s Gas Price Prediction Is ‘Totally Wrong’

Chris Wright

Gas Prices

The European Union will urge members to cut their dependence on Middle Eastern jet fuel and look into increasing imports from the U.S., in new guidelines expected next week, an official source told Reuters, as the Iran war disrupts global supply.
The plans, previously unreported and still being finalized, will put a greater focus on self-sufficiency and resilience via Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) or synthetic fuels.
European airlines have warned of potential jet fuel shortages within weeks ‌as a result of the Iran war, which could disrupt the summer travel season. Europe is particularly vulnerable as it imports some 30% to 40% of its jet fuel, at least half of that from the Middle East.
The EU&#8217;s non-binding recommendations will emphasize the bloc&#8217;s limitations in increasing jet fuel output domestically and provide guidance on how to handle potential shortages, the source said.
The person asked not to be named because the discussions are ongoing and the draft is not yet finalized. A European Commission spokesperson confirmed plans to present a response to the energy crisis next week, including measures on jet fuels.
Availability of supply &#8220;remains the primary concern,&#8221; the Commission spokesperson said, adding that if supply remained snarled through the Strait of Hormuz, the EU could launch a possible coordinated release of jet fuel stocks.
Iran opened the Strait of Hormuz on Friday, a key gateway for energy flows from the Gulf, after a ceasefire accord in Lebanon, though U.S. President Donald Trump said a naval blockade remains in place until a deal is sealed with Tehran.
The EU spokesperson said he hoped a resumption of safe passage through the Strait would last, but reflecting the ongoing uncertainty, added: &#8220;Let&#8217;s see.&#8221;
FLIGHT CANCELLATION THREAT GROWS
Flights in Europe could start to be cancelled from the end of May due to a lack of jet fuel, the International Air Transport Association&#8217;s director general Willie Walsh said on Friday. Airlines are cutting flights and grounding some planes.
The source familiar with the EU&#8217;s plans said the document would lay out guidance for airline handling issues in the case of fuel shortages such as losing airport slots due to cancellations and the EU&#8217;s anti-tankering rule, designed to prevent planes from loading extra fuel in cheap locations.
It will clarify whether a fuel shortage can be considered exceptional enough for airlines to avoid paying compensation for cancellations. The source added that the EU has decided airlines&#8217; calls for changes to or the suspension of the Emissions Trading System (ETS) and SAF allowances were not justified.
The European Commission also plans to introduce EU-wide mapping of refining capacity for oil products and introduce measures &#8220;to ensure that existing refining capacity is fully utilized and ​maintained,&#8221; a draft proposal earlier seen by Reuters showed.
EUROPEAN IMPORTS OF U.S., NIGERIAN JET FUEL RISE
They will also look at the distribution logistics of increasing the use of U.S. Jet A fuel, traditionally seldom used in Europe because it has a higher freezing point than the European standard. Europe&#8217;s Jet A-1 is better suited to long‑haul, high‑altitude and cold‑temperature operations and is preferred by the military. Jet fuel imports from the U.S. and Nigeria rose sharply in April.
Some of Europe&#8217;s key hubs in Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany rely on the NATO-operated CEPS pipeline, which supplies European grade jet fuel. A spokesperson for NATO did not immediately reply to questions about the pipeline&#8217;s logistics.
Airlines are preparing for a potential supply crunch, with the International Energy Agency forecasting jet fuel shortages by June if the region can only replace half of the supplies it normally gets from the ​Middle East.
Some airports have warned of shortages within three weeks if the Strait of ‌Hormuz remains ⁠closed to fuel shipments. The European Commission is expected to warn jet fuel supply could remain limited even if the Strait of Hormuz is unblocked.
(Reporting by Julia Payne and Joanna Plucinska; Editing by Adam Jourdan and Elaine Hardcastle)

Menu